>, iil 


H3 


ν 


bE he. ae 
= 
ae ὃ ἑ 
μην τ ν | 
> 
ΡΩ͂ a3 
5 & 
τας es A 
. Zz ΕΒ 
φ-» : gs 
| a - SR 
2 <> of AS 
aS = > A Be ; 
oe oS 
io 2. a “ἴ \ aS ng . 
ae 
ΕΞ cts 3 o ΤΩ Ι 
Bes ρβ pees |e : ee 
neni of ZEB S : 
| oa 20 ᾿ 
3 aun πο τὴν 
Ἢ a Rather: | a = 
¢ ν᾽ ; : } ΠΩ͂ ι 
᾿ RAL | ot . i an δ Ἔ τ 
χὰ spa) why Ἶ ὥ : 
oa "8 


tS em ee 


SR ee ker eee 


ro. ne Moone eg, = ol Oe τὶ 


Tn eae ermine τοῦ. — caret Ss 


Gra 


Dr 
τς 


»" Ἶ fs 
Φ 
μι 
—_ 2 
: p & 
Ὁ ΚΒ 
᾿ - » 
ΝΕ 
[3 
Ξ a 
= a 
. fy 
μι & a 9 
ee | ἢ 
ΡΣ a 
ΡΞ ΤΣ he 
: i ips gee 
: ee 


- 


DEGREE OF 


NDIDACY 


in Ca 


FOR THE 
Docror or Puitosoruy 


PREFACE. 


The purpose of this investigation of the principal versions of — 
Baruch is to bring forward some new results that have been 
reached : 

It is conclusively shown that the whole book was written origi- 
nally in Hebrew. 3:9-4:4 was a poem in 3/3 meter; 4:5-5:9, 
its companion poem, was in 3/2 meter. 

The Greek version, which was made by a single hand at an 
early date, has suffered much variation and corruption, especially 
in the prose part. The present text is late and has probably been 
influenced much by the recension (not a new translation) of 
Theodotion. : 

The Old Syriac version was originally made from the Greek. | 
The only text which is known to us is a later conflate recension; 
this I have called the Ordinary Syriac version. There is no 
evidence that it was ever directly influenced by any Hebrew text. 

Two Latin translations of the book were made. The first of 
these (Kneucker’s Vet. Lat. δ) was made from the pre-Hexaplarie 
Greek. Thé second (Kneucker’s Vet. Lat. a, surviving chiefly in 
the Vulgate) is a later close rendering of our standard Greek text. 
A third text, Hoberg’s Die dlteste Lateinische Uebersetzung des 
Buches Baruch, is the result of conforming Vet. Lat. b to the 
standard Greek text. It has passed since 1902 as the “oldest 
Latin version of Baruch’, but is really late and unimportant. 

A pre-Christian date for the Greek translation of Baruch is © 
proved by the identity of its author with that of the Greek of 
Jeremiah of which it was a part. 

I wish to express my cordial thanks to Prof. Charles C. Torrey, 
under whose direction. this investigation has been made, for 
valuable suggestions and\assistance. 
R. R. Harwe zt. 


Yale University, ‘April, 191. 1 :᾽ σιν 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 

a ee τ τε ae bs oe 2 
INTRODUCTION....... πστ΄ τ΄ oe, 4 
tne SyRo-HEXAPLAR VERSION «2.5 oc 6 eae τόν ως 5 
| m1 ne ΟΡΝΑ ΝΥ SYRIAC. VERSION 04.00 cee ee i. 10 


1. The Syriac Version Translated from the Greek 11 
2. Additions to the Syriac Version Based on Greek 
Authority ..... eS hee eon ra tie ὃ ον er 17 


3. Conflations in the Syriac Version Probably Due 
to a Combination of Variant Greek Readings 21 


4, The Omissions of the Syriac Version ......... 26 

Bee ΤΟ OLD LATIN. VY RBIONS, 00 eke woo hue Wes og wed 29 
1. Both Old Latin Versions Translated from the 

EIGER: ig otk GAS abe cin Ao cle BETS RO Sos. 29 
2. Both Versions of the Old Latin Exhibit a 

τ ΣΥΝ ΥΤΝ FOROS. Sees. Seen nia ves 30 


3. The Current View that Old Latin ὁ is Depen- 
dent on Old Latin @ is not Established by 


the Evidence Advanced... 2. 00050502005 225 31 
4, Old Latin ὁ Independent of Old Latin a..... 36 
5. Old Latin 6 is an Earlier Version than Old 
Eat 4 oc sees: te ORE aa ee: Se πον east aeh 
6. Old Latin ὁ Descended from a Greek Text 
which Antedates the Standard Text........ 44 
7. The Latin Recension of Baruch according to 
the Codex Gothicus Legionensis ............ 47 
IV. THe GREEK VERSION ...... PU ee eG akon ae ebay a 52 
1. The Greek of Baruch Translated from the 
Ἐξ, «cts ne poled alkane eb τ bir ean alee 52 


2. Only One Translator of the Hebrew into Greek | 59 
3. The Old Greek Text Originally a Part of 


POUONI ee Ἧς ΟΕ πέσον SUS ewe ei ν τ 60 

fee SOUMPORITION AND ΤΥ ee SES a Se 63 
ΕΟ απο, ον ee 8k πὸ ρει τέ κι νες i ΎΣΕ 63 

ene SRE ena oe Ear ep τιν bea  ἐἰέννι 64 


INTRODUCTION 


Under the title, The Principal Versions of Baruch, are included 
the Greek, Latin and Syriac versions. The Greek version has 
been preserved as a part of the Septuagint and follows Jeremiah 
in the chief manuscripts. Of the two Old Latin versions, one, 
O. L. a, was incorporated in the Vulgate, and the other, O. L. ὃ, 
is found in only a few manuscripts, distributed in Rome, Rheims 
and Paris. Manuscripts of the ordinary Syriac version are found 
in Paris and London, while the Syriac translation by Paul of 
Tella is preserved in a single Codex in Milan. : 

These versions will be investigated in the reverse order to that 
of the chronological on account of the use made of the signs and 
marginal material found in the Syro-Hexaplar Codex. 

The following is a partial list of modern investigations of the 
Book of Baruch: Fritzsche, Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, vol. 
1 (1851); Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch (1879); Gifford, in 
Speaker's Commentary (1888); Marshall, in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of the Bible (1898); Bevan, in Cheyne’s Encyclopaedia Biblica 
(1899) ; - Rothstein, in Kautzsch, Apokryphen und Pseudepi- 
graphen des A. T. (1900); Toy, in The Jewish Encyclopaedia 
(1902); Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 4th ed., vol. 3 
(1909); Charles, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1910); 
Whitehouse, in Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the 
O. T. vol. 1 (1913). 


I. THE SYRO-HEXAPLAR VERSION. 


A literal Syriac translation of the old Greek version of the Old 
Testament was made from a hexaplar text by Paul of Tella in 
616 A. D. The signs used by Origen together with many readings 
from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion have been preserved in 
this translation. The poetical and prophetic books including 
Baruch are found in the Codex Syro-Hexaplaris which was 
published in fac-simile by A. Ceriani in 1874. 

The Syro-Hexaplar version of Baruch is more nearly identical 
with the Greek of cod. B than with that of any other codex. In 
a comparison of these two texts the Syriac shows the following 
differences, (1) additions: 

1:20 qx 53] <= ex γης Αιγυπτου; 2:2 —? ee; 2:18 baod=— 
πνευμα; 2:28 MM συ; 3:2 sXemdZlo yodul bLsoupdo lowly dso 
= ort Geos ἐλεημων a καὶ ελεησον; 3:13 H=|=xpovov; 4:8 
<+? = δε, and under asterisks 9:1 Veto qe S—S cudutcd 
jas5¢3 = του ayayew ep nuas κακα μεγαλα. (2) omissions: 2:2 
ev; 2:14 προσωπον; 2:18 αὐτου; 3:10 τι; 3:22 de; 4:23 μοι, and 
(3) variations: 1:9 = avrovus, B avrov; 2:3 bod=? = ww, 
B wov; 2:9 —? ee =a=o0is, B και; 2:17 qadwdo? = xataBarres, 
B τεθνηκοτες; 2:17 12] = δικαιωματα, B δικαίωμα; 2:18 -? «σι -- 
ἡ, Β ὁ; 23:29 ἢ d=a μη: Β εἰ μην; 2:29 βδωοος ὃν = εἰς μακραν, 
B εἰς μικραν; 3:7 ΝΞ ΞΞ ἐπι, Β απο; 4:8 ——? = δε, B δη; 4:18 
=? = δε, Β και; 4:14 583) ΞΞ σου, Β μου; 4:34 plo = περιε- 
λεῖ, Β περιελῶ. 


A comparison of the Syro-Hexaplar text with cod. A shows on 
the one hand that they agree in a few cases against B, but on the 
other that A differs much more from the Syro-Hexaplar text than 
B does. 

A and the Syro-Hexaplar text agree against B as follows: 

(1) in additions: 1:18 ev; 1:20 ex yys Acyumrov; 2:24; 2:11 και; 
2:19 ἡμων; 3:2 οτι Geos eAXenuwv εἰ Kar eXenoov; 3:13 xpovov; 
3:26 οἱ; 4:8 δε; 4:25 σου; (2) in omissions: 2:18 αὐτου; 
3:10 τι, and (3) in variations: 1:9 εἰσηγαγεν, B nyayev; 1:9 


6 ὦ ἐς os 5 ae: τ Ἅ..Ε. Harwell, 


avtous, B avrov; 2:3 νιων, B wov; 2:29 εἰς μακραν, B εἰς μικραν ; 
3:7 em, Β απο; 3:23 ovre, B ore; 4:8 δε, B δη; 4:30 παρα- 
kare, B παρακαλεσει. 


Cod. A differs from the Syro-Hexaplar text as follows: 


(1) in additions: 1:4 αὐτων; 1:5 evyas; 2:4 ἡμων; 2:13 by; 2:14 
του ovouatos; 2:17 Kar.... Kupie.... σοι; 2:20 λεγων; 2: 24 
και TA οστα των ἀρχοντων nuwv; 2:26 gov; 2:29 Kar; 3:35 και; 
4:9 yap; 4:10 του λαου; 4:15 ὁ Geos; 4:18 υμιν; 4:20 ὑψιστον ; 
4:21 και... «υμων; 4:25 yap; 4:28 vos... . ovrw νυν; (2) 
in omissions: 1:2 ev; 2:11 καὶ νυν; 2:16 as; 3:4 cov; 3:7 
και; 3:37 υπ᾽; 4:9 yap; 4:21 ex dvvacreas; 4:22 ἐπι τη ελεη- 
μοσυνῃ; 5:6 ws, and (3) in variations: 1:1 wos™*, B wov; 1:1 
Sadaov, B Ασαδαιου ; 1:4 του βασιλεως, B των βασιλεων; 1:7 es, 
B ev; 1:10, 13 υμων, B ημων; 1:11 αὐτου, B avrwv; 1:14; 4:6 
npas, B vpas; 1:14 ημεραις, B ἡμερᾳ; 1:22 yuo, B avrov; 2:8 
αὐτου, B avrwv; 2:21 εργαζεσθαι, B epyacacbe; 2:23 πολεως, B 
πολεων; 2:24 αὐτου, Bavrwv; 2:33 επιστρεψουσιν, B αποστρεψου- 
ow; 3:26 ἐγενηθησαν, B ἐγεννηθησαν; 4:1 avrns, B αὐτην; 4:18 
εφυλαξαν, B eyvwoav; 4:15 οι, B ort; 4:17 δυναμαι, B δυνατη; 
4:24 ynyov.... nu, Bupov.... vow; 4:26 απο, Β υπο; 4:34 
ayoApa, B ἀγαλλιαμα; 5:2 ayov, B αἰωνίου; 5:6 wovs, B θρονον. 


From the above comparison of texts it is evident that A varies 
considerably more from the Syro-Hexaplar text than B does. 
Cod. Q supports A in most of the important variations that have 
been enumerated. : 

The Origenic signs that are found in the Syro-Hexaplar codex 
are of great importance; they furnish MS. evidence that readings 
from Theodotion were once in existence; the lectionary signs 
indicate that the usual form of the text is incomplete at the begin- 
ning of the book; and the words, “Not found in the Hebrew” 
together with one passage under asterisks appear to contradict the 
subscription which states that the entire book was under the obelus, 
that is, that the Hebrew original was not known to Origen. 

The Syriac letter +, indicating Theodotion, is found in the 
margin with a reading five times, namely: 


1:1 μα]; = Acaciov, B Ασαδιου; 1:2 bso = εν τῇ €opty, Β εν τῳ 
καιρῳ; 1:9 bass? = βασιλεως, Β βασιλεὺς ; 2:29 1᾽σι ἸΖ; 2. 15 
Peo 40202 = ῃ πολυοχλία ἡ μεγαλη αὐτὴ ἀποστρέψει σμικρυνεσ- 


Versions of Baruch. q 


θαι, By βομβησις ἡ μεγαλη ἡ πολλη αὐτὴ ἀποστρέψει es puKpay ; 
4:13 pe? = αληθειας, B παιδιας. 


The MS. from which Paul of Tella made his translation had 
indicated on its margins the beginning and the end of passages 
selected for public reading. The word used at the beginning of 
a selection is 4°, “read”, and the end is marked by the letter 
ων which is an abbreviation of *>*#, “it is finished”. That 
these signs are not original in the Syriac, but have been trans- 
lated from its Greek authority, is shown by their confusion in sev- 
eral places. It is probable that a selection sometimes had two 
endings each marked by a -™, so that the reader was at liberty 
to choose a longer or shorter lesson; for example, in Proverbs a 
Ἐπ is found at 10:27 followed by a —*at 11:2 and another at 
41:7. But in several instances in Isaiah and Jeremiah there seems 
to have been some rearrangement of text in the Greek authority; 
for example, a »r is found at Isaiah 32:14 while the next -- 
occurs at the close of 35:6; such a selection is by far too long 
and does not agree with the ordinary usage. Also in Jeremiah 
31:9 the end of a selection is marked which has no beginning. 
Again it should be noted that a νῷ is not omitted when the pas- 
sage selected for reading begins with the first verse of a book, for 
in the Wisdom of Solomon it is found at the beginning of 
the book. Now in Baruch each of the passages, 3: 24—3: 37, 
4:1—4:4, 4: 27—4: 37, and 4: 36—5:9, has its beginning marked 
by a“; and its end by av#, but the end of a selection is also 
indicated in 1:5 which has no corresponding ~-°. The natural 
inference to be drawn from this fact is that the book of Baruch 
in some of Origen’s MSS. had a beginning which differed from 
that of the standard text, and that in recasting the text the »- 
was lost which corresponded to the "Ὁ now found at 1:5. 
Although the latter had lost its meaning, it was still copied in the 
margins of later MSS. 

Finally, the note, “Not found in the Hebrew”, occurs three 
times in the margin of the Syro-Hexaplar version. This note 
has been of uncertain interpretation because the subscription indi- 
cates that the book was known only in Greek. The first occurrence 
of this note refers to the obelized words +t? esa “we who 
have sinned”, on which J. J. Kneucker comments as follows: 
»Grundlos setzt der hexaplar. Syrer, verleitet durch die Auslas- 


8 R. R. Harwell, 


sung der Lucianischen Handschriften, die Worte qb? <s>0 
unter Obel mit der Randbemerkung: hoe non positum in 
Hebraeo” (Das Buch Baruch, p. 223). Five ecursives omit 
ov ἡμάρτομεν, but Paul of Tella had before him a hexaplar text, 
if not the original Hexapla which was still existing, so that it 
is quite certain that these words bore the obelus in the Hexapla 
itself at the beginning of the seventh century A. D. Again, it 
is very probable that the original Hebrew of Baruch had dis- 
appeared before Origen’s time, or at least that he was not aware 
of its existence, for the Syro-Hexaplar version has a concluding 
note to the effect that the entire book bore the obelus, and with 
this the codex Chisianus agrees. Then, too, the case is further 
complicated by the fact that the obelized words in 1:17 are 
necessary to the sense and cannot be omitted, so that the pre- 
sumption in favor of a clerical error is very strong. ; 

Following the suggestion of Nestle in Hastings’ Bib. Dict. volt 
4, p. 450 note, that the words, “Not found in the Hebrew”, refer 
to the source, Dan. 9:8, and not to an original Hebrew text of 
Baruch, we find that a very slight error in placing the obelus 
in the Hexapla, or in a text copied from it, will explain the 
facts. For comparison the texts of Bar. 1:16, 17 and of Dan. 
9:8 are placed in parallel columns thus: 


ww> W555 Kat τοις βασιλευσιν ἡμων και τοις ἀρχουσιν ἡμῶν ; 
[2 32) 222 21} και τοις ἱερευσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τοῖς προφηταις ἡμῶν; 
|? NOM WN IVMIND καὶ τοις πατρασιν NOV WY ἡμάρτομεν εναντι 
κυριου. The words in brackets are not in the Hebrew, so that it is 
hardly to be doubted that the Greek corresponding to these brack- 
eted words should have borne the obelus instead of wv ἡμάρτομεν. The 
mistake might easily have been made in a series of phrases which 
begin and end with similar words, especially since the signs were 
written between the lines. A mistake in reading these signs was 
prevented in the O. T. by comparison with the Hebrew, but this 
was not possible for Baruch. This conclusion is corroborated by 
the somewhat similar instances in 2:3. Here the word av6pwzov 
which occurs twice bears an obelus in each case and has the same 
marginal note, “Not found in the Hebrew”. It is not a question 
of a misplaced obelus, for in each instance the obelus has been 
placed upon the word that is lacking in the O. T. source, which 
may have been one of the following passages: Dt. 28:53 ΓΟΝῊ 


Versions of Baruch. 9 


PAID) PID WI 7A 7H, Lev. 26:26 AWWA ONION 
YOONA ὈΣ 2 WD) ODD. Baruch 2:3 agrees more closely 
with the second passage than with the first because “flesh” is 
repeated and the forms are plural, but in both cases the distribu- 
tion of the subject by the use of UPN.--- Y"N is not employed as 
in the corresponding Greek of Baruch. Therefore the note, “Not 
found in the Hebrew”, seems to refer to the source of 2:3 rather 
than to a Hebrew original of the book itself. Moreover, asterisks 
are found in 2:1 with the clause, lAS3e3 [dei cand cudutad ‘to 
bring upon us great evils”, and this clause also occurs in the 
source, Dan. 9:12. 

The Syro-Hexaplar signs do not, uiseetowk give any basis 
for supposing a Hebrew text extant in Origen’s time, nor any 
proof of a Hebrew original for Baruch. 


1. THE ORDINARY SYRIAC VERSION. 


The Syriac version of the canonical books of the Old Testa- 
ment, called Peshitto, is based on the Hebrew; it is a generally 
faithful translation of a text practically equivalent to that of the 
Massoretes. According to Wright’s judgment this version as a 
whole is a product of the second century A. D. (Hist. of Syriac 
Tit. p. 3.) The Syriac version of Baruch, however, exhibits 
several marked differences from that of the canonical books. It 
is based upon the Greek; and its final editor was guided in his 
work by the principle that the variants of his authorities must be 
preserved, with the result that the readings of different versions 
and recensions have been placed beside one another. Again, with 
regard to date the version in its present form is much later than 
the second century. During this period the Greek text of Baruch, 
on which the Syriae is based, was a part of Jeremiah, as the 
men who used the MSS. testify by their manner of quoting. But 
for the final editor of the Syriac translation of Baruch the separa- 
tion of this book from Jeremiah was certainly in the distant 
past. To him the century that produced the Hexapla belonged to 
history, for the fusion of texts which it effected is perfect and 
all of its readings, both textual and marginal, are authoritative. 
Moreover that method of dealing with Biblical texts which might 
be called Lucianic, is not only established, but has reached its 
climax in the Syriac version of Baruch, in that all accessible 
variants are incorporated in the text. Ephraim Syrus (Opera 
Syr., 1743, 111., 212) quotes Bar. 4:9, 19(?) from a Syriac 
version which appears to be the one from which ours is derived, 
but is without the conflations. In verse 9, —% and >> are 
wanting; in verse 19 the adjective d=. The origin of these 
additions is discussed below; it is certain that they date from 
a time far later than that of Ephraim. Our ‘Ordinary Syriac’, 
then, is merely a late recension incorporating variant readings 
from many sources, as will be shown. 

The Syriac text has been published in the Polyglots of Paris 
and of London, both based on a manuscript in Paris. In his 


Versions of Baruch. τ 


Libri V. T. apocryphi syriace, Lipsiae 1861, De Lagarde has 
based his text of Baruch chiefly on MS. 17105 of the British 
Museum. 


1. The Syriac Version Translated from the Greek. 


The Syriac version of Baruch abounds with additions and 
conflations, yet when these are removed it follows the standard 
Greek version. This expanded text of the Syriac is a serious objec- 
tion to the hypothesis that the Hebrew original was among the 
authorities of the Syriac translator. It may be confidently 
asserted that there was never in existence a Hebrew original which 
contained the conflate readings of the Syriac, because the Greek 
version would have betrayed some knowledge of them if they had 
been in the Hebrew. The Syriac text, however, had a history 
before it assumed its present form. The first translator would 
never have so added to the text of his authority. Yet when these 
additions are removed, the remaining text is based on the Greek. 
It must be remembered also that the Greek of Baruch occupies 
a position. between two cognate languages, the Hebrew and the 
Syriac, so that Semitic modes of thought and expression, though 
clothed in Greek, would be recognized by the Syriac translator 
and that words which had been inaccurately translated in the 
Greek would be corrected, especially if the Hebrew source which 
Baruch had used was accessible. Now it is well known that 
Baruch has drawn largely from Deut., 2 Isaiah, Jeremiah, Dan., 
and the Wisdom literature, and therefore his sources were prob- 
ably familiar to the Syriac translator. Then, too, the Greek 
of Baruch contains a number of rare words which the Syriac 
translator would naturally interpret by comparing them with the 
sources if ‘possible, so that the Hebrew of the sources, and not 
that of Baruch, will account for some of his renderings. The 
hypothesis, however, that the Syriac translator had before him, 
not only the Greek version, but also the Hebrew original of the 
first three chapters of Baruch, has recently been advocated by 
O. C. Whitehouse in an article on Baruch contributed to the 
first volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O. T., 
edited by R. H. Charles, Oxford, 1913. This hypothesis is quite 
untenable since the Syriac text furnishes strong evidence that the 
Greek is the only authority of the Syriac translator. This is not 


12 R. R. Harwell, 


intended to exclude the influence of versions that are also based 
on the Greek. The evidence which Whitehouse has advanced to 
establish his view is deduced from the following passages: 


1:1 μώγτὰ “Shariah”. The new name is not dependent on a 
Hebrew original as Whitehouse suggests, but it is due to a 
confusion of Daleth and Resh in Syriac, which was not 
infrequent. The loss of the initial Alaf is accounted for 
by Sadaov, the reading of cod. A, which has also been fol- 
lowed by both Latins. 

1:1 “255 “to Babylon”. On this Whitehouse comments, “as 
though Baruch wrote the letter to Babylon. Heb. 9333 
one 9 dropped and 935 was naturally interpreted as Accus. 
‘to Babel’”. The Syriae editor held the view that is stated 
in the Apocalypse of Baruch, 77:19, “ And I [Baruch] 
wrote these two letters: one I sent by an eagle to the 
nine and a half tribes; and the other I sent by men to those 
who were at Babylon”. The text of this letter to the nine — 
and a half tribes forms the conclusion of the Apocalypse 
of Baruch; the letter to the two and a half tribes is not 
given although it had been announced. The Syriac trans- 
lator, or final editor, certainly regarded the Book of Baruch 
as the letter to the two and a half tribes. The evidence for 
this is the title and subscription of the letter to the nine 
and a half tribes together with the title and destination of 
the Book of Baruch; they are as follows: ἰγϑῶ γον» 14p~] 
\.22 Somaic] qo jpa? “The letter of Baruch the scribe 
which he sent from Jerusalem to Babylon”. The text of the 
letter to the nine and a half tribes is then given and is 
concluded with this subscription, 42? las, 14 soe 
22 “End of the first letter of Baruch the scribe”. Imme- 
diately following is the Book of Baruch with the title, 
<+452) ἸΖεκὶ “The second letter”. This theory of the origin 
and relation of the two letters makes necessary the change 
from “222 “in Babylon” to “225 “to Babylon”. 

1:4 em ποταμου Sovs The Syriac renders 5.) baa Sse “and on 
the river Sur”. This new name for an unknown river is 
advanced as evidence for the presence of a Hebrew original. 
The interchange of sibilants is no evidence at all, while 
the confusion of Daleth and Resh will account for the final 
letter of the Syriac. 


Versions of Baruch. i 


1:9 In this verse the Syriac has added Wel “workmen”, and 
has omitted xa: τὸν Aaov τῆς yns. Whitehouse comments 
thus, “S varies considerably after ‘princes’, viz. ‘and the 
officers and the workmen and the armies from Jerusalem’. 
Here ‘the workmen’ (reyutas = WI) takes the place of 
‘the people of the land’ in G and Syr.-Hex., and stands in 
closer accord with both Jeremiah 24:1 and the history of 
the year 597 B. C. (comp. 2 Kings 24:14). We are in 
fact led to conclude that S here rather than G is based on 
the original Hebrew text”. Does this mean that the Greek 
translator had before him the Hebrew text that is required 
by the Syriac, so that he translated WM incorrectly by 
tov λαὸν τῆς yys While the Syriac translator rendered it 


correctly by Hel “workmen”? The answer is self-evident, 
but in addition to this the suggested substitution must be 
rejected for the reason that τεέχνιτας is found in the margin 
of the Syro-Hexaplar, and the Syriac translator uses this 
Hexaplar material, not as a substitute for the text, but 
invariably as an addition to it. 

1:19 εσχεδιαζομεν is rendered in the Syriac by v*© “we rebelled”. 
After stating the meanings of this word Whitehouse remarks, 
“Dan. 9:5, 11 enables us to restore the original”. That it 
was Dan. 9, and not the Hebrew original of Baruch, which 
furnished the Syria¢ translator with his word, is evident 
from the following reasons: (1) In this verse the first 
word, azo, has a variant reading, διοτι απο, which is found 
in seven cursives, namely, 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 96, 231. The 

Syriac renders by —? “4 “because from.” This agree- 
ment of the Syriac with these cursives is so frequent through- 
out the book that it is difficult to escape the conviction that 
they have a common Greek authority. Again the rendering 
of απειθουντες by <etesidsc W, “were not persuaded”, as the 
Syro-Hexaplar regularly does, favors a Greek original for 
this word. (2) The influence of the O. T. sources of 
Baruch on the Syriac translator may be detected everywhere 
that it is possible to control him, but he reaches the climax 
in the seventh verse of the fifth chapter. The Greek varies 
from the source, Isaiah 40:4, by adding the phrase, και 
θινας aevaovs, for which the Syriac translator substitutes from 
the source this sentence, beaa> lend bepso, “and the rough 


14 R. R. Harwell, 


places shall become a plain”. Here his leaning, and leaning 
heavily, on the O. T. source is evident in a passage that 
Whitehouse says is original in the Greek. (3) The Greek 
word under consideration occurs only here in the LXX., 
though the thought that is to be expressed is found repeated 
in Dan. 9 to which the Syriac translator could refer to find 
the exact meaning. 

1:20 καὶ εκολληθὴ εἰς μας ta xaxa. For this the Syriac has 
[oa ews 2219. “and there came upon us the evil”. The 
relatively frequent occurrence of xoAAav in the LX X. makes 
quite certain the Hebrew original, TJ 133 PIT) 
“But”, says Whitehouse, “the Syriac rests on a variant 
ΓΜ 23 NIM which has greater inherent probability 
since we have in Dan. 9:13 ΠΝ ANN AYW by” ae 
is another case in which the Syriac translator leans on the 
O. T. source instead of following his Greek. That the 
Greek translator had before him N32 which he mistrans- 
lated by εκολληθη while the Syriac has it correctly rendered, 
is not at all probable since the same sentence occurs again ~ 
in 3:4, and the Syriac translation -2=2°, “and there clung”, 
shows that the Greek is not a mistaken rendering of the 
Hebrew. 

2:7 ἃ ελαλησεν κυριος ef nyas. The Syriac renders, sey “Naito 
beso ees “inasmuch as the Lord has declared concerning 
us’. Whitehouse comments, “This rendering of the relative 
in Hebrew [WN] is not only more accurate, but brings 
with it better construction and sense. It is obviously not 
based on the Greek but on the Hebrew original”. A com- 
parison of this verse with its source, Dan. 9:13; shows that 
a relative pronoun should not be placed between ravra and 
nAbev, so that the second 4 is plainly a dittograph from the 
last letter of ταυτα. It is correctly omitted by Q. In an 
effort to obtain a better construction six cursives have 
emended the first 4 to dor, which has been followed by 
the Syriac with τ “+>, “because”. 

In the following list additional evidence is brought forward to 
show that the Syriac is wholly dependent on the Greek. 

1:1 τοῦ βιβλιου = 120 I2p~ 2 ‘this letter”; 1:2 εν τῳ καιρῳ = [55}5 
cm ‘in that time”; 1:3 τοὺς Aoyous = ean LSo-yd.2 
‘these words”; 1:3 τὴν βιβλον = ἔϑε9 σι ‘this book”. 


Versions of Baruch. 15 


The Syriac translator began his task by rendering the Greek 
article where possible with a demonstrative pronoun. He 
did not proceed very far before he discontinued this mode 
of translation, but these four cases are sufficient to show that 
he did not have a Hebrew original at the beginning of his 
work. 

1:10 ayopacare του apyvpiov ὁλοκαυτωματα καὶ περι ἅμαρτιας. ‘Two 
kinds of sacrifices are here mentioned which are also found 
in reverse order in Lev. 5:7 APPYD ANN) ANON INN = 
ἕνα περι apapTtias και ἕνα εἰς ολοκαυτωμα Of the EX: ον is 
searcely conceivable that the Syriac translator could have so 
misunderstood the Hebrew original of “burnt-offering” and 
“sin-offering”, when codrdinated, as to omit the conjunc- 
tion and render lj» as. bsos* [po “burnt-offerings in 
behalf of sins”. Only a misunderstanding of the Greek will 
account for this mistranslation. 

1:14 καὶ ev ἡμέραις καιρου. The Syriac renders, bys? ldscouce 
“and on the days of the Lord”. This translation of καιρου 
by +;—? “of the Lord”, is satisfactorily explained as a 
misreading of καιρου as xupiov. If the Syriac translator had 
had the Hebrew text before him at all, he would never have 
rendered by substituting “Lord” for “feast”. According 
to his regular practice he would have added the word “Lord” 
to “feast”. This fact is proved by his numerous additions, 
in which the Greek variants are incorporated in his text. 

2:6 yyw δε =<? <>? “but to us”. Here the Syriac, instead 
of retaining its own idiom and that of the Hebrew 139), as 

is done in 1:15, has followed the Greek. 

2:18 em τὸ peyefos is a mistranslation in the Greek which the 
Syriac has not improyed with its 142+) “3 “for its great- 
ness”’. 

2:25 337 is mistranslated by αἀποστολη as in Jeremiah 32: 36, 
instead of by θανατος as in Jeremiah 14:12; 6:7. The 
Greek is followed by the Syriac with b+o«> “in captivity”. 

3:3 ΠΏ, “dead of”, is regarded by critics as a misreading of 


TVD “men of”. The Syriac c++? “who are dead” agrees 
with the Greek. 


3:8 οφλησιν is found only here in the LXX. and it is rendered 
in the Syriac by [θυ “debt”, “condemnation”. From 


16 


R. R. Harwell, 


the context, however, one expects a synonym of FWY which 
Jeremiah has used so often in the same context. Hence, it 
is probable that the Greek has misread ΓΝ “devasta- 


tion” (comp. Job. 30:3; 38:27) as TINWID “loan”, “debt” 
(comp. Prov. 22:26). 


:14 paxpoBwors is found only here in the LXX., although the 


idea conveyed is regularly expressed by 2) JN which the 
Peshitto renders by [so4 iyo “length of days”. There- 
fore the influence of the Greek may be detected when 
paxpoBwow is rendered by ἔζων Ἰδιδοῦ pod “length of 
days of life’. 


:21 ovde — Wes] “nor”. The same translation is also found in 


3:22, 23, 27, 31, and 4:13. This indicates Greek authority 
as the Hebrew was probably 5) or PN). 


:23 οἱ μυθολογοι occurs only here in the LXX. and the Syriac 


has followed the Greek closely with ld#se# edduaso? eadul 
“those who narrate myths’. 


:24 επιμηκης. Seven codices, 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 96, 231, read 


ευμηκης Which the Syriac renders by —##°3 ¥—5] “abundantly 
long”’. ! 


:32 κτήηνων τετραποδων. The original was probably 373 which 


the Peshitto constantly translates with lrs2, “beasts”, but 
here the Greek influence is unmistakable in 2%]? |peso 


earn “beasts which have four feet’’. 


:1 αὕτη ἡ BiBdros. In the Hebrew original this Greek would 


require WDD A or WDD AN? which must mean, “This 
[writing of Baruch] is the Book”, so that the Greek is 
certainly a mistranslation. The αὕτη should of course be 
αὐτὴ from NT, “She [Wisdom] is the Book”. The Syriac 
translator was not influenced by the Hebrew original of this 


passage. 


-2 διοδευσον. The Greek is reflected in micsho yan “walk in 


its way”. 


:7 @Ovoavres δαιμονιοις. The effort of the Syriac to express this 


casual participle of the Greek is seen in Wpbes duo Os 
“by the fact that ye sacrificed to demons”. 


: 8. δὲ xa = -Ξἷ <4? “and also”. The Hebrew possibilities 0), 


DN) or 03) show no influence since the Greek is followed in 


Versions of Baruch. 17 


word and position. δὲ is also rendered by <—~? in 3:23, 
34; 5:6. 

4:9 yap =+-+—~ “for”. The Hebrew is °} and is usually pre- 
positive. The Syriac has followed the Greek in word and 
order. Exactly the same translation is repeated in 4:7, 
10, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 29, 33, 35; 5:4, 6, 7, 9. 

4:25 μακροθυμησατε. For this the Syriac has 223 Cm I draw 
out your spirit”. Since the Greek word is used transitively, 
the Syriac inserts another verb to govern the object. 

4:34 Most Greek codices have ayadAvapa which has been corrupted 
to ἀγαλμα in A, 49, 90. The Syriac uses both, Iywo beta, 
“idols and exultation”. It is safe to say that this conflation 
is not due to a Hebrew original. 


Since in those passages which the Greek has mistranslated or 
inadequately translated the Hebrew, no aid has been given by the 
Syriac translator other than that which is accessible in familiar 
O. T. sources, we judge that the evidence advanced establishes 
the thesis that the Syriac translator was wholly dependent on 
Greek authorities. 


2. Additions to the Syriac Version Based on Greek Authority. 


The ordinary Syriac version has been characterized by Fritzsche 
thus: ,,Auch die Syrische schliesst sich ziemlich eng an ihren 
Grundtext an, nur wo sie sich nicht zurechtfinden kann, wird 
sie freier und umschreibt” (Die Apokryphen des A. T., p. 175). 
Kneucker elaborates this view and shows by means of many 
examples that the Syriac translator uses paraphrase not only 
where he is uncertain, but also expands the text in passages where 
there is no reason for doubt, and that, he has a special fondness 
for placing two synonymous expressions beside each other (op. cit. 
p. 168). | 

A cursory examination of the Syriac version of Baruch dis- 
covers many additions and doublets; a word or phrase of the 
Greek is rendered in the Syriac by two words or phrases, and 
in several instances by three. No explanation of this apparent 
verboseness has been attempted so far as I have been able to 
ascertain. Kneucker states the case, but offers no other explana- 
tion than that the additions are due to the translator’s exegesis 
and that the conflations are the result of his special fondness for 


2 


18 R. ἢ. Harwell, 


synonymous expressions (op. cit. pp. 167 f.). This is equivalent 
to saying that they are arbitrary. : 

That the Syriac translator, or editor, made additions to his 
text without MS. authority, is contrary to all that is known about 
the practice of translators of the Bible after its text had become 
relatively fixed during the third century A. D. Hence, this con- 
jecture of Kneucker must be rejected. If now it is possible to 
demonstrate that a part of the additions to the Syriac text 
existed in the margins of the MSS. which were accessible to our 
translator, then the probability that he had authority for all 
his additions is strong. Fortunately in the margin of the Syro- 
Hexaplar text for Baruch there are found sixteen additions and 
variants, and one other occurs in the text under asterisks. Of 
these seventeen Hexaplar additions, the Syriac translator has 
used thirteen; of the remaining four only one could have been 
used by him without rejecting the text of the LXX.; and the 
omission of this one may be due to homoeoteleuton. They are 
the following: 


1:9 basccflo ‘*and the workmen”. 
1:14 —s25 “in behalf of us”. This addition has its textual 


basis in —>«? lujw, ‘our sins”, the marginal reading of the 
Syro-Hexaplar. } 
2:1 Wssed [dase bypso ees udulo ‘‘and the Lord brought upon 
* us great evils”. Except 9, ‘‘and”, and the subject, bp, 
‘*Lord”, this sentence is found under asterisks in the Syro- 
Hexaplar text; according to a marginal note of Q it isa 
reading of Theodotion. O.L. a alone supports the addition 
of 0 ‘‘ Lord ”’. 4 

2:13 low <% ‘‘from a multitude”. The Syro-Hexaplar reads 
Tee? <0, ‘from many”. 

2:15 om, From the context this word means ‘‘ art”. 

2:26 bosoms ‘for a devastation”. The Syro-Hexaplar has in its 
margin a synonym, viz., ἔβρω, ‘‘ waste”; cod. 88 has ἐρημον 
under an asterisk. 

2:29 τὐςϑδῶθ ‘and they shall be diminished”. This variant 
reading from Theodotion has been rendered in the Syro- 
Hexaplar margin by }&= ‘‘to decrease”. 

2:31 Waseca» “understanding”. This addition is also found 
in seven cursives,. 


Versions of Baruch. 19 


3:4 bps “Lord”. This word has’ been substituted for cov of B; 
most cursives and Q have κυριου; A omits entirely. 

4:5 lnSo ‘of God”. This reading is supported by seven cur- 
sives; B has pov. 

4:6 ὥριος, ‘to yourenemies”. The Syriac is a combina- 
tion of vrevavriovs and HaseS& ἐς peoples”, found in the Syro- 
Hexaplar margin; the suffix, 5-, is clearly implied, but 
has only the support of O. L. ὁ. 

4:13 \deoc? “of truth”. This is a reading from Theodotion. 

4:18 δ, ‘“‘upon you”. Thisaddition is also supported by Q 
and nine cursives. 


To the above may be added one case from the margin of Q. 
3:2 qaed somio Da] bLsoupsor “as “because thou are compassion- 
ate and pity us”. ‘This sentence is also found in A and nine 
cursives; in Q, however, it is written in the margin. This 
last fact, together with its omission in B and the remaining 
cursives, is evidence that it is Hexaplaric material that has 
escaped the obelus. 


Therefore the Syriac version as it now exists has in its text 
without Hexaplaric signs fourteen additions whose source is 
directly or indirectly the Hexapla as the marginal material of 
the Syro-Hexapla proves. It cannot be over-emphasized that this 
fact reveals to us the practice of the Syriac editor, namely, he 
incorporates in his text without signs the marginal additions and 
variants of his authorities. 3 

The Syriac text contains a number of shorter additions for 
which support can be found in the extant Greek codices. Their 
presence in the Syriac also shows that it was the purpose of the 
translator, not to reject the variants of his authorities, but to 
save them. Those which are found in A Q, and in each case alsc 
in a part of the cursives, are: 


1:20 --ὐς3ο) 185] so “from the Jand of Egypt”; 2:2 =? ‘‘which”; 
2:4 —‘“us”; 2:14 5 “‘name”; 2: 17 bys “Lord 7: 3: 26 
- “νοῦ; 4:9 ry “‘for”; 4:11 ΘΔ “them” Canty | in 
A); 4:25 » ‘‘your” (wanting in Q); 4:34 m4 ‘shall be”. 


A few additions have only cursive support. In the subjoined 
list the number of cursives that agree with the: para 3 is indicated 
in the parentheses. | : 


20 R. R. Harwell, 


1:19 =2\A% “‘ because” (7); 3:8 4 “thee” (8); 4:7 δα) lad} 
‘‘eternal God” (1); 4:9 “2 ‘*me” (2); 4:10 » “γ᾽ (1); 
4:14 » “τὴν ᾽ (2); 5:1 = “τὴν ” (S-Hex. only). 


The additions which are found in the O. L. and the Syriac prob- 
ably had Greek authority; the Latin version which agrees with the 
Syriac is indicated in parentheses. 


2:1 leamso “and Judah” (b); 2:9 <til “them” (a); 2:16 = 
“us” (a); 3:11 wh m3 ‘*those descending” (a); 3:37 ala 
‘‘this is” (a); 4:1 ea nd “they shall have” (a Ὁ); 4:37 
rey‘ for” (a); 4:37 las) bap? “of the Lord God” (Dom- 


ini in b). 


The final list contains those additions to the Syriac text which 
find no support in the extant authorities. Only a few of these call 
for comment. 

To the editor’s theory in regard to the origin and purpose of 
this book is probably due the addition, (225) «δ ha, 
“these (words) he wrote (to Babylon)”. A few additions are the 
result of the difference in order of words in the texts before the 
translator so that in his effort to save everything possible, phrases 
have been repeated; for example, in 4:32 the sentence “—S καρ 
qadmaso, “thou shalt rejoice over their fall’, is found in the 
next verse, while the sentence, +2 > #12) καὶ o5,] “those 
who have treated thee evilly shall fear”, is repeated from the 
preceding verse. The substantive use of the Greek adjective also 
led to expansion, as the rendering of ὑπο πολλων in 4:12 by 
Thangs? bas eS “by many people”. Again, corruption in the Greek 
text produced a conflation in 4:34 which will be discussed later. 
Many additions are supplementary; a passage in Baruch was 
not so complete as its O. T. source, hence readers of the MSS. 
indicated the deficiencies on the margin, for example, in 1:21 
woes “his servants’, is added before “prophets”, and it is 
probable that it came into the Syriac text from a marginal read- 
ing, as it occurs in the source, Dan. 9:6, 10. The Divine name 
is frequently supplemented, for example, xvpios is rendered by 
«σις Ὁ} beso, “Lord our God”, in 1:18, 18; 2:9; 8:2, and Geos 
by las! bps, “Lord God”, in 3:24; 4:9, 24, 25, 27, 87; 5:1. 
0 awvos is expanded into the more concrete expression Mas {ps , 
“Lord of eternities”, in 4:10, 14, 24; 5:2. With the exception 


Versions of Baruch. 21 


of those words which produce conflation, the remaining additions 
are as follows: 


1:8 ΟἹ “them”; 1:12 woosmssl) “‘that we may serve him”; 
1:14 bpd xo “before the Lord”; 2:2 Kil SS “upon the 
earth”; 2:3Ne2h “‘should eat”; 2:14“ but”; 2:15;3:7 
bap “holy”; 2:17 odd: <4] “those who descend”; 
2:19 .2oo42] SS “for our righteousness”; 2:20 a2 “all”; 
3:12 -2 “‘because” (Ὁ); 3:30 οἱ “tor”; 4:6 - \—be& 
‘* because ”; 4:22 wacseud 2% ‘on account of his mercy”; 
4:23 miso .aasacl) “from whom I received you”; 4:28 
bupdo Zo ‘to the Lord”; 4:31 ᾿ἰδιλάρϑδο “cities”; 4:37 => 
“to thee”, betes? “of the sun”; 5:5 wpes22l “awake”, 
bopssedo “and to the west”, 9 <s¢le ‘‘and they are com- 
ing to thee”; 5:8 b2S ‘forest; 5:9 eae ‘over you”. 


About eighty additions have been enumerated in the above lists; 
thirty of these are found in the Syro-Hexaplar and in extant 
Greek codices, seven others agree with the Latin, and the rest 
are without known authority. In seeking a satisfactory explana- 
tion of these additions, it must be remembered on the one hand 
that codices were worthless to that degree in which they could 
be shown to have additions without authority, and on the other 
that great pains were taken to avoid omitting anything authori- 
tative. Origen’s use of six, if not seven, Greek interpreters in 
his monumental work, not only shows the existence of many 
relatively important translations, but also that he was loath to 
reject any of them. The evidence, therefore, warrants the con- 
clusion that the additions found in the Syriac version are based 
on Greek authority. 


3. Conflations in the Syriac Version Probably Due to a 
Combination of Variant Greek Readings. 


It has been established in the preceding discussion that the 
Syriac editor regarded the textual and marginal readings of the 
Hexapla as being alike important. His treatment of this Hexa- 
plaric material justifies the expectation that he will deal with 
all his approved authorities in the same manner. The mixed 
character of the Syriac text shows that the editor had access to 
the readings of the uncial texts that are now extant, and to those 
of the MSS. from which the Lucianic group of cursives has 


22 R. ἢ. Harwell, 


descended. That many of these MSS. had marginal annotations 
is placed beyond doubt by the Syro-Hexaplar version. It is also 
known that MSS., corrected by leaders such as Eusebius and 
Lucian, were extensively used. Such MSS. would lead to con- 
flation in later recensions. It is also probable, that many of 
the conflations in the Syriac version of Baruch are due to a 
combination of Old Greek readings with those of Theodotion. 
In the following lists those cases will be given first in which both 
parts of the conflation can be found in the Greek or Latin versions. 
2:23 εκλειψειν ποιήσω (1) rod) bdosey “1 will make an end”; (2) 
r>cle ‘and I will cause to perish”. 


This conflation is found in O. L. a, ‘‘defectionem vestram 
faciam ....et auferam a vobis”. In Jeremiah 7: 34, the source 
of this verse, the LXX. renders *A3W7 by xaraAvow and there are 
no variants, but in Jeremiah 36:29 the same thought occurs, and 
the LXX. renders PYRwWN by εκλειψει while A Q 23 and some cur- 
sives render by εκτριψει which the Syro-Hexaplar has translated in 
its margin by r=“, just the variant that the Syriac has added. 


2:29 ἀποστρέψει εἰς μικραν (1) 140505} (6, ϑσι ἐς They shall turn to 
littleness”’; (2) τς 92:29 ‘‘and shall be diminished ”’. 


The first sentence follows the Old Greek and the second is 
Theodotion’s reading. 
4:4 μακαριοι ἐσμεν Ἰσραηλ (1) «2» Woes “Happy are we”; (2) 
\waptta] yaoogde ‘and happy art thou Israel”. 


The first part of this conflation agrees with the Greek and the 
second has been preserved in MS. corb. of O. L. b whigh reads, 
“Beatus es tu Israel”. 

4:9 mevOos μεγα (1) [39 1.5] ‘reat mourning”, according to most 
of the codices; (2) =>» ‘‘(mourning) which is forever”, 
according to a variant found in seven cursives. In this 
conflation the Syriac combines the two readings by means 


of a relative pronoun. 
4:12 θεου (1) bp “Lord”; (2) last “God”. 


All authorities read θεου except O. L. 6 whose ‘*‘ Domini” sup- 
ports the first part of this conflation. 
4:13 παιδιας (1) 120%—S? ‘‘of the discipline”; (2) —so—2? ‘‘of 

truth”. 


Versions of Baruch. 23 


__. The second part is Theodotion’s reading which has been com- 
bined with the Old Greek reading by means of the Genitive. 


4:34 ro ἀγαλλιαμα (1) bead. “images”. This is a translation of 
ἀγαλμα, a corrupt reading found in A, 49, 90. (2) leu 
‘‘exultation”. This is the correct reading, which is well 
supported. 


The next list contains twenty-three conflate readings in which 
the second part is a more literal rendering of the Greek than the 
first. The most satisfactory explanation of this class of confla- 
tions is that the first part of the conflation is due to the original 
translator, whose renderings are often free and sometimes inac- 
curate. Then in the history of such a version corrections were 
made in the margins of the MSS. until the time when the final 
editor combined into one text both the original translation and 
the marginal material. 


1:6 καθα exacrov ndvvaro ἡ χειρ (1) aS αἱ ς Joo bso? yu} «αἱ, “each 
one as he came through with his hands”; (2) —s2e%o? yale, 
‘*and as he was able”. 


2:12 τοις δικαιωμασιν σου (1) pe—Ip—2e—2, ἐς thy commands”; (2) 

ψάβϑοθ, “thy righteous (acts) ”. 

2:16 κατιδε (1) 50m, ‘‘look”; (2) “ως, ‘‘ and see”’. 

2:17 δοξαν (1) lbuwonet, “praise”; (2) Ibwote, ‘“‘and glory ”. 

2:25 ev ρομφαια (1) Lep-a>; (2) baumoo. The first is ambiguous, 
‘‘sword” or ‘‘ waste”; the second must be ‘‘and by the 
sword”, 

3:4 ta κακα (1) gos, “curses”; (2) euro, ‘and evils”. 

3:7 αδικιαν (1) Ween, “evils”; (2) Hose, ‘and iniquity ”. 

3:15 εἰς τοὺς θησαυρους avrys (1) 13 3c, “to its barn”; (2) hwo 
a-., ‘‘and to its treasury”. 

3:23 οἱ ἐκζητηται (1) qeBed%? cada], “those who follow after”; 
(2) --αὖϑο, ‘Sand seek”, 

3:28 δια τὴν αβουλιαν αὐτων (1) b—D—aame—So + =, “ without 
thought”; (2) [esi2 «σι. jon Dud peo, “because they 
had no counsel”, 

3:30 περαν τῆς θαλασσης (1) «σιοῦϑβ, ‘its bounds”; (2) "4pm 
bsew, “and the uttermost parts of the sea”. 

3:33 ὑπηκουσεν (1) sods], ‘‘hearkened”; (2) wr-a—l—so, ‘and 
answered him”’, 


24 . Rk. R. Harwell, 


3:36 ov λογισθησεται erepos προς avrov (1) LS ;--ῷ-ὸς cape] Dado, 
‘‘and there is no other beside him”; (2) <p] —ooud2 He 
mls -;2>, ‘and no other will be accounted of beside him”. 

3:38 why (1) “<i, “was revealed”; (2) ~twdle, ‘and was 

seen”, 

4:3 καὶ τα συμφεροντα (1) y= Od? Xp, ‘whatever good thou 
hast’; (2) y> swase, ‘and thy advantages”. 

4:3 την δοξαν (1) pdwenm2, ‘thy praise”; (2) yreslo, “Sand thy 
honor ”’. 

4:13 Sxawwpata αὐτου (1) w1edpcoe, ‘his commands”; (2) aclays , 
‘*and his judgments”. 

4:16 amnyayov (1) o2", ‘‘take captive”; (2) o-=2e, ‘Sand lead 
away”’. 

4:21 ex δυναστειας (1) Maes ups] ee, “from the strong”; (2) 
απο, ὡροὶ do, ‘and from the domineering rulers”. 
4:24 pera δοξης (1) lécpue, “with joy”; (2) Wwomedooc, ‘and 

with praise ἢ, } 

4:25 μακροθυμησατε (1) @au0d opyl, “draw out your spirit”; (2) 
Cpouwc, ‘‘and endure”. 

4:27 ὑπο rov.erayovros (1) bapso 205, “‘ with the Lord”; (2) om <0 
qtr eae wluly, “by him who has brought these things 
upon you”, 

4:28 επιστραφεντες (1) 204, “turn”; (2) e-eedlo, ‘‘and be 
turned ”’, 


_ The following list includes both those conflations in which the 
two parts are equally good as renderings, and those in which the 
second part is a translation inferior to the first. 


1:13 και προσευξασθε (1) αἷς, “pray”; (2) S20, ‘and seek”. 

1:15 ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὐτὴ (1) Wo boom yal, “(85 this day”; (2) Hseow, 
‘*(as) to-day”. 

2:13 ore κατελειφθημεν orvyor (1) rads] on Canc? So, ἐς because 
we are left few”; (2) 1555] edule, “and we are few”. 

2:18 ἡ λυπουμενη (1) oS%, “615. grieved”; (2) A> bpo?, “that is 
distressed ἢ, 

2:24 ex του rorov αὐτων (1) a2] —d, ce their place” : (2) 
σι —sec, ‘Sand from their graves” 

2:27 κατα πασαν επιεικειαν cov (1) ~Acsaut> ee yl, ‘according to 
all thy kindness”; (2) yla=, a> yulo, ‘“‘and according to 
all thy good will”. 


8: 


a 


ie 


or 


Versions of Baruch. 25 


1 καὶ πνευμα ακηδιων (1) ἰΖθ 5.5) bwod, “ἐδ spirit that is in dis- 
tress”; (2) basse Ipeo, ‘‘and grieved bodies” 

2 ἐλεημων εἰ (1) 2.31 Ldeupr, ea penmonttc art eine ms. (2) 
leuesco, ‘*and compassionate ”. 


25, 8 αδικιων (1) fos, ** iniquity”; (2) |2oano | ‘Cand sin”’. 
79 pee (1) loan, ‘understanding ”; (2) WDSeouwo, ‘Sand wis- 


dom” 


:20, 28 emornuns (1) Heow, ‘‘of understanding”; (2) (Asoauro, 


‘Sand of wisdom ”’ 


: 21 πόρρω εγενηθησαν (1) τὍσι...5.) cows], “ they icuanae far”; (2) 


o7-sco, ‘*and rebelled”. 


:1 αὐτὴ ἡ βιβλος (1) Lodo aa, ‘*this is the book”; (2) Lipsove, 


‘Cand memorial (record)”’. 


: 2 επιστρεφου (1) 2241, “turn”; (2) -ael2le, “and be inclined”. 
:9 τὴν opynv (1) We}, “Sanger”; (2) Wseac, “and wrath”. 
:11 pera... . mevOos (1) Wolo, ‘with mourning”; (2) Wuldco, 


‘‘and with groanings”. 


13 ἐπεβησαν (1) +259, ‘they have gone”; (2) otuagd] of, “or 


they, obeyed ”’. 


:16 τὴν μονὴν (1) 14peme, “the one alone”; (2) |4pucasadc, 


‘‘and the solitary one”’. 


: 19 ἐρημος (1) =p, “deserted”; (2) 1d42,°, ‘and desolate ”. 
:33 λυπηθήσεται (1) -Oes42, “she shall be grieved”; (2) l-=4° 


a>, ‘‘and she shall be troubled”. 


:1 τῆς Kaxwoews σου (1) seat ‘Sof hs evil”; (2) sosuc, 


‘*and of thy suffering” 
: ἢ (Greek wanting) (1) lesa ity plain” 5 (2) léreeaoc, “and 
’ level place”. 


The final list contains three cases-of conflation to the second 


degree, which are highly instructive; they further reveal to us 
the working theory of the Syriac editor with reference to his 
task, namely, he must incorporate the variants of his approved 
authorities regardless of the duplication of clauses. 


Ls 


18 και ηπειθησαμεν αυτω (1) wetssow flo, ‘and we did not hearken 
to him”. As we learn from the source, Dan. 9: 9, the origi- 
nal was probably JD which the LXX. rendered by nre- 
Onoopev. (2) wrcdpoos dec, ‘and we despised his com- 
mands”. A second Greek interpreter had translated the 
Hebrew by ηθετησαμεν which O.L. ὃ rendered by ‘‘ contemp- 


26 R. R. Harwell, 


simus”. (3) --αξ 2] lo, ‘“‘and we were not obedient”. 
Since both of the preceding renderings were in a measure 
inaccurate, the final editor added still a third which is an 
etymological translation such as is frequently found in the 
Syro-Hexaplar version. 

2:19 yes καταβαλλομεν τον ελεον (1) -» πο 2, ‘we do trust”, 
This is the original, but inadequate rendering of a difficult 
passage. (2) Hews ole easto, ‘‘and we seek mercy”. In 
the source, Dan. 9:18, Theodotion translates Ὁ 52 by. 
purtovpev, and the LXX. by δεόμεθα, which is just the distine- 
tion that exists between this and the third part of the con- 
flation, (3) s-—a22 ole ----α- τοῦθ ‘and we throw our 
prayer”. This is the literal translation with which the 
‘*jactamus ” of O.L. ὁ agrees. 

4:26 επορευθησαν οδους τραχειας (1) beo2e5 cdl, ‘they went into 
captivity”, which is a very free rendering. (2) -2—=Sa¢ 
bsops? ἴδ. fduicho, “They went in hard ways of rough 
place(s)”. A more literal translation than the first. (9) 
[Roms |dw clo οὐ, 2]ο, ‘““They were scattered in difficult 
ways”. Although the verb is taken from the following 
sentence, yet the use of waw shows that the Syriac editor 
intended that it should be joined to the preceding sentence. _ 


About sixty conflate readings have been enumerated in the 
foregoing lists; for seven of these support has been found in 
other versions for both parts of the conflation. These seven cases 
are important because they show that the readings of Theodotion 
and the variants in the recensions of the Old Greek have pro- 
duced conflation in the Syriac. Did the translator or editor 
arbitrarily add those words which no longer exist in extant 
codices? or did he find them in the versions and recensions that 
he used? Since it has been established that our editor incorporates 
in his text the marginal material of his authorities, it is very 
probable that he would also use the variant readings of the texts 
that were accessible to him. 


4. The Omissions of the Syriac Version. 


The Syriac translator has omitted only a few words of the 
Greek text. This fully accords with his purpose to save every 
variant possible. A misunderstanding of the text in a few 


Versions of Baruch. 27 


instances and the common clerical mistakes will explain the most 
of the omissions. They are the following: 


1:8 apyvpa. The Syriac text probably was, r-O—4? emo? Libs, 
‘¢ vessels of silver which he made”; the first two words end 
with the same letter, and the second and third begin with 
-? and «Ὁ respectively, so that the copyist might easily 
overlook the word ‘‘silver”’. 

1:9 καὶ τον Aaov τῆς yys- All the versions except the Syriac have 
this phrase, so that it was certainly before our translator 
who may have omitted it because it is not in Jeremiah 24:1, 
the source from which this verse has been taken. Another 
possibility is that “the people of the land” were identified 
with “the poor of the land”, who were not carried into 
captivity (2 Kings 25:12). 

1:10 xu. The translator misunderstood περὶ ayaprus which led to 

his rejection of the conjunction. 

:20 ws ἡ ἡμερα avty. This phrase was omitted because it was 
understood to refer to the infinitive clause, “to give us a 
land flowing with milk and honey”, whereas it should refer 
to the first sentence of the verse, namely, “The evils and the 
curse clung to us”. 

2:4 exa. In verses 12 and 29 this word occurs in the same con- 
text and is translated; hence a clerical mistake probably 
exists here, a confusion of exe with the following και. 

2:8 tov προσωπουι The next two words are κυριου του, so that acci- 
dental omission is probable. 

3:4 8. The Arabic and Coptic also omit. In 2:13 the Syriac 
‘uses waw to render $y, but waw is excluded here by the 
preceding vocative. 

3:7 xa. The Syriac probably used a text in which this word was 

wanting as it is in A Q. 

:10 τι is a corrupt addition in B; it is wanting in A Ὁ. 

:10 «a. The difference in punctuation will account for the 
omission of this word. 

3:18 or. Reusch has conjectured that the original was °% which 


μ- 


Φὸ CO 


was misread as 2 ; the latter did not suit the context and 
was therefore dropped. 

3:37 vm’ is wanting in A Q; it is probable that it was not in 
the authorities of the Syriac translator. 


28 R. R. Harwell, 


4:2 κατεναντι. The Syriac subordinates φωτὸς to λαμψίν by means 
of the Genitive; the two prepositions are thus brought 
together and are well represented by “—2—20-5, ‘‘ over 
against”. 

4:13 αὐτου The conflation produced in the Syriac by Theodo- 
tion’s reading has led to the rejection of this word. 

4:14 xu. The corruption of 4, ‘let them come”, into eal, 
‘*ye”, has made the conjunction superfluous. The Syriac 
has also omitted βαβυλωνος (1:9), ὑπο την σκιαν (1: 12), ἡμων 
(2:27 and 3:36), amo (4:16), de και (5: 8). 


Ill. THE OLD LATIN VERSIONS. 


There are extant two Latin versions of Baruch; one has a longer 
form of text which agrees closely with the standard Greek, and 
the other has a shorter form of text which exhibits considerable 
independence by its omissions and variations, and especially by 
a few noteworthy additions that find no support in other versions. 
For convenience we shall follow Fritzsche and indicate the longer 
text by the letter a and the shorter by ὁ. 

Jerome did not translate into Latin the books of Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, but he adopted for 
these books the Old Latin translation which he found in use in 
the church, so that the version of Baruch denominated a was 
incorporated in the Vulgate and has shared its history. On the 
other hand the shorter text of ὃ is extant in only a few MSS.; 
of these Sabatier has used cod. Ecclesiae Remensis, n. 1; cod. S. 
Remigii pariter Remensis, n. 4; cod. S. Theodericii ad Remos, 
n. 1; duo codd. Paris. Monasterii S. Germani a Prates; et cod. 
Orat. B. 7, editum a J. M. Caro, Romae, 1688. Both a and ὃ 
have been published in parallel columns by P. Sabatier in 
Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu vetus Italica 
et caetera, Reims, 1743, 49, Paris, 1751. In regard to a mixed 
text, published by G. Hoberg as Die dilteste Lateinische Ueber- 
setzung des Buches Baruch, see section 7 below. 


1. Both Old Latin Versions Translated from the Greek. 


It is the generally accepted view that the translators of a and 
b did not have the Hebrew original among their authorities. This 
view is undoubtedly correct, for the influence of the Greek upon 
the Latin versions is evident throughout the book while no direct 
influence of the Hebrew can be found. 

The mistranslations of the Greek are followed by both a and b; 
for example, 1:10 καὶ περι αμαρτιας, pro peceato; 2:18 em τὸ 
μεγεθος, super magnitudine mali (omitted by δ); 2:25 αποστολη:; 
emissione; 3:4 τεθνηκοτων, a mortuorum, ὃ defunctorum; 3:8 
οφλησιν, a peccatum, ὃ gentes. Etymological equivalents are used 
by a and ὃ in translating Greek compounds; for example, 1:19 


30 R. R. Harwell, 


eEnyayev, eduxit; 2:34 κυριευσουσιν, dominabuntur; 4:2 επιλαβου, 
apprehende; 4:6 εξηλθον, exierunt; and so frequently. Greek 
words and constructions are imitated; for example, 5:2 διπλοιδα, 
μιτραμ, diploide, mitram; 1:20 peovoay yada και μελι, a fluentem 
lac et mel. The influence of the Greek order is especially notice- 
able in the latter part of the book; for example, 4:9 Wev yap τὴν 
ἐπελθουσαν vuw opynv παρα του θεου, ἢ vidit enim supervenientem 
vobis iram a Deo; 4:36 και We τὴν εὐφροσυνὴν την παρα Tov θεου σοι 
ερχομενην, a et vide jucunditatem a Deo tibi venientem. Much of 
the evidence advanced below to prove that b is not dependent 
on a likewise shows that the Greek was the only authority of the 
Latin translators. 


2. Both Versions of the Old Latin Exhibit a Mixed Text. 


There occur in a and ὃ many of the additions, omissions and 
variations of the Greek as they appear either in the text of A 
or in that of B. Some of these are doubtless due to accidents 
in the transmission of the respective texts, but this is an inade- 
quate explanation for the most of these differences. 

a and 6 agree with A in using the following words and clauses 
which are wanting in B: 1:20 εκ γης Αἰγυπτου, 2:1 Tov ayayew ep 
ἡμᾶς Kaka peyada, 2:2 a, 2:20 λεγων, 3:2 oT. Geos ἐλεημων εἰ Kat ἐλεη- — 
gov, 3:35 και, 4:8 δε, 4:9 yap, 4:34 εσται, 5:1 σοι. 

aand 6 agree with A in the omission of three words found in B, 
namely, 2:18 αὐτου, 3:10 τι, 3:37 uz. 

a and ὃ agree with A in the following variations : 1:1 Σαδαιου, 
B Ασαδιου; 1:10 avrovs, B avrov; 3:26 εἐγενηθησαν, B ἐγεννηθησαν ; 
4:8 δε, B 37; 4:15 οι, B ore; 4:20 υψιστον, B αἰώνιον 5 4:30 παρα- 
kare, B παρακαλεσει; 5:6 vovs, B Opovov. 

On the other hand ἃ and 6 agree with B in using a word or 
phrase that is omitted by A, as 2:11 καὶ νυν, 3:7 και, 3:23 δε, 4:9 
yap, 4:21 ex δυναστειας, 4: 22 ἐπι τὴ ελεημοσυνῃ. 

a and } agree with B in omitting a word or phrase that A uses, as 
1:5 evyas, 2:13 8y, 2:14 του ovoparos, 2:17 και, 2:19 ynuwv, 2:24 καὶ 
Ta. οστα apxovTwv ἡμῶν, 2:26 σου, 2:29 και, 4:15 6 θεος, 4:21 και, υμων. 

a and 6 agree with B in the following variations: 1:4 βασιλεων, 
A βασιλεως ; 1:11 avrwy, A αὐτου; 1:14 ἡμερᾳ, A ἡμέραις; 2:3 wor, 
A wov; 2:23 πολεων, A πόλεως; 2:29 μικραν, A μακραν; 3:23 ore, 
A ovre; 4:13 ἐγνωσαν, A εφυλαξαν ; 4:16 μονην, A povoyernv; 4:34 
ἀγαλλιαμα, A ayadya; 5:2 αἰωνιου, A ayiov. 


Versions of Baruch. 31 


Readings from Theodotion are found in both Latin versions. 
According to Q-marginal Theodotion is authority for the addition 
in 2:1, του ayayev ed yyas κακα μεγαλα, which both ὦ and ὁ have; 
in 4:13 both Latin versions Omit παιδειας, the reading of B, and 
use αληθειας which is from Theodotion; in 1:9 6 uses βασιλεως, 
Theodotion’s reading, instead of βασιλευς, the reading of B. 

Finally, both Latin versions have readings which among Greek 
codices are found only in the so-called Lucianic cursives, especially | 
36, 48, 62, 231, for example, 2:5 a ὦ 8 ctirs. ἐγενηθημεν, B εγενηθη- 
σαν; 3:8 a0 5 curs. ταυτα, Brovro; 4:22 a6 4 curs. ἡμων, B vor ; 
5:6 ab 8 curs. aoaga, B acaya; 3:2 a6 7 curs. add yn; and in 
8:8 ὦ 6 10 curs. omit ort. 


-8. The Current View that Old Latin b is Dependent on Old 
Latin a is not Established by the Evidence Advanced. 


A comparison of the Latin versions with each other shows 
that they have many renderings in common, some of which seem 
to point to a dependence of one version upon the other. The 
Latin of ὃ exhibits also a better style than that of a, and though 
the language of both versions is post-classical, yet that of b con- 
forms itself less to the Greek text than that of a does. Likewise 
b uses fewer ecclesiastical terms. Without giving reasons 
Fritzsche has expressed his judgment that ὃ is dependent on a, 
and Kneucker has formulated the evidence in favor of this view. 
No English scholar appears to have examined the Latin versions. 
Marshall summarizes Kneucker’s discussion of them in this 
sentence, “b is a recension of a, improving its Latinity, altering 
some of its readings to agree with B, and indulging in explana- 
tory comments” (Hastings’ Bib. Dict. vol. 1, p. 254). White- 
house says that it is clear that b follows a in a considerable 
number of details (op. cit. p. 579). Charles, however, expresses 
himself more definitely as follows, “The Latin one in the Vulgate 
belongs to a time prior to Jerome, and is tolerably literal. 
Another, somewhat later, . . . is founded upon the preceding 
one and is less literal” (Hncycl. Brit. 11 ed., vol. 3, p. 474). It is 
evident that Charles has adopted the current view for he does not 
undertake to prove that b is founded on a, yet an examination 
of the evidence that has been advanced by Kneucker to establish 
the dependence of b on a shows that it lacks cogency; for in 
spite of the fact that b seems to have improved upon a in a few 


32 R. R. Harwell, 


cases, it remains true that a follows the standard Greek text 
much more closely than b does, and is therefore the superior 
version as might have been inferred from its incorporation in the 
Vulgate. This however does not prove that b was independent, 
yet if b had had before him the text of a and the Greek presup- 
posed by a, the production of an inferior version would have been 
a step in the wrong direction, especially if a better Latin scholar 
were doing the work. 

Fritzsche has characterized a as ,,ziemlich wortlich”, and b as 
eine latinisirtere Ueberarbeitung der erstern mit Zuziehung eines 
griech. Textes und etwas freier” (Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, 
vol. 1, p. 175). Kneucker quotes this characterization with 
approval and adds that ,,sowol aiissere als innere Griinde 
bestaétigen das Urtheil Fritzsche’s, welchem neuerlichst auch 
Schiirer beitrat” (op. cit. p. 158). 

The external evidence is of course the patristic citations; the 
majority of these according to Kneucker agree more closely with 
a than with b. If it could be shown that the early patristic 
quotations from Baruch were in closer agreement with a than 
with .b, then no further argument would be needed. But the fact 
is, that because of its Christological bearing the most of these 
quotations are from the third chapter of Baruch, and it is just 
in this chapter that the’two Latin versions are so nearly identical 
that it is impossible to determine on which the citation depends. 
The one exception, however, is the long quotation of 4:36-5:9 
by Irenaeus, which is extant in Latin that is considerably nearer 
to the text of b than to that of a. Kneucker brings forward also 
the statement of Augustine that the Itala “est verborum tenacior 
cum perspicuitate sententiae”, which applies better to a than to ὃ. 
This inference is doubtless true, but it tells us nothing about the 
relative ages of the Latin versions of Baruch. Until new mate- 
rial is brought to light the question of the relation of a to b 
must be determined by internal evidence, and here also Kneucker’s 
proof in each case is only the selection of one of several possi- 
bilities. It will be necessary therefore to examine with consider- 
able detail the passages on which Kneucker bases his argument. 
It must constantly be borne in mind that this hypothesis of an 
improved and consequently dependent, version of b postulates the 
presence of substantially the standard Greek text before b. 


Versions of Baruch. 33 


fiir unmittelbare Abhiangigkeit der Vetlat. Ὁ. von Vetlat. a. 
sprechen aber auch innere Indicien unwiderlegbarer Art”. This 
“irrefutable” evidence is found on pp. 160 f. of Das Buch Baruch, 
and is as follows: 


5:2 ,,Die Uebersetzung ‘gloriae aeternae’ der Vetlat. b. beruht 
auf Misverstand von ‘honoris aeterni’ in Vetlat. a.” 
Neither version follows exactly the Greek τῆς δοξης του 
awvov, in each case the adjective agrees with the noun 
regularly used in each version; doga occurs eleven times 
in Baruch, a renders it eight times by “honor”, and ὃ nine 
times by “gloria”, so that if both had had identically the 
same Greek text for this phrase, the respective translations 

- would have been made without dependence or misunderstand- 
ing. Moreover, Irenaeus agrees with b. 

3:14 ,,‘Longiturnitas, virtus et vita’ der Vetlat. b. lasst sich nur 
aus ‘longiturnitas, vitae et victus’ in Vetlat. a. erkliren”. 
It is impossible to see why the “virtus” of b can only be 
explained from the “victus” of a. It is true that “virtus” 
is probably a copyist’s mistake, but this may have occurred 
in the copying of ὃ from an earlier MS. If ἢ were dependent 
on a, it should read “vitae et virtus” and not “virtus et 
vita”. | 

2:7 By homoeoteleuton ὃ has omitted a clause which Kneucker 
explains ,,durch die Annahme, dass das Auge des Verfassers 
vom erstern ‘haec quae’ in Vetlat. a. zum andern ‘haec 
quae’ ebendaselbst abirrte”. According to Sabatier a has 
“haec quia”, not “haec quae”. The possibilities here are at 
‘least three, namely, (1) that b was copying from a as 
Kneucker claims, (2) that ὃ made the mistake in the 
Greek MS. which also has the relative pronoun repeated, 
and (3) that the mistake was made within the MSS. of ὃ 
which must have been recopied one or more times before 
the extant MSS. came into existence. Hence, the first 
possibility seems hardly “irrefutable”. 

3:23 ,,Wenn Vetlat. b., abweichend vom Griechischen sagt; 
‘fabularum inquisitores; prudentiae viam et sapientiam non 
recognoverunt’, so lasst sich dieser Text wiederum nur aus 
der Uebersetzung der Vetlat. a. ‘fabulatores et exquisitores 
prudentiae [“et intelligentiae” ist Zusatz]: viam autem 


ΣΝ 


34 R. Κα. Harwell, 


saplentiae nescierunt? unter  Beriicksichtigung des 
Griechischen ableiten und erklaren, und diese Abhangigkeit 
von Vetlat. a. springt um so deutlicher in die Augen, wenn 
man beachtet, dass Vetlat. b. in der ersten Halfte des Verses 
selbst συνεσις durch ‘intellectus’, hier dagegen mit Vetlat. 
a. durch ‘prudentia’ wiedergibt”’. 


If b has abridged the “fabulatores et exquisitores” of a, might 
not this have been done from the Greek text which a follows 
verbatim? Or might not b have had a slightly different Greek 
text from that of a? If b is dependent on a in this phrase, how 
is its independence of a and of the Greek in this same sentence to 
be explained? In a as in the Greek the following “prudentiae” 
must be construed as a Genitive limiting “exquisitores”, while 
in ὃ “prudentiae” must be construed with “viam”. Moreover, 
“especially clear’ evidence of the dependence of b on a is detected 
in this verse because ovvects, which is repeated, is rendered in ὃ 
by “intellectus . . . prudentia”, and in a by “prudentia .. . 
prudentia.” It is not unusual for ὃ to render by two different 
words the same Greek word which has been repeated in the same 
or in the next sentence; for example, 3:15 αὐτῆς . . . avrys, 
a@ejus.. . ejus, ὃ ejus. . . illius; 3:32 avrnv . . . αὐτὴν, 
aeam... eam, ὃ illam . . . eam; 4:18 rpodevoavra . 
εκθρεψασαν, a nutrivit . . . nutricem, ὃ salvavit . . . nutrivit. 


2:18 ,,Die grésste Beweiskraft hat jedoch die Stelle Kap. 2, 18, 
wo der Text der Vetlat. b. augenscheinlich aus Elementen 
von Vetlat. a. in der Weise zusammengesetzt und verkiirzt 
ist, dass einestheils die in den Worten ‘anima, quae tristis 
est super magnitudine (mali) et incedit curva’ liegende 
Schwierigkeit iibergangen, andererseits aus der ‘anima quae 
tristis est et infirma’ und aus der ‘anima esuriens’ kurzweg 
mehrere—zwei oder drei—‘animae tristes et infirmae et 
esurientes’. hergestellt werden”’. 


The Greek text of this verse is partly corrupt as Kneucker has 
‘recognized and emended, yet a follows the Greek closely and 
removes the difficulty by adding “mali”. ὃ agrees neither with 
a nor with the Greek. It is quite probable that b used a dif- 
ferent recension of the Greek text from that which a used, yet 
if the translator of b did abridge, is it not more reasonable to 
suppose that he abridged the Greek in which there was a real 


ee ee ee a ae 


Versions of Baruch. 35 


difficulty rather than a in which the difficulty had been removed ? 
If both a and ὃ exhibited the same emendation of a corrupt pas- 
sage, then dependence might be inferred, but this is precisely 
what they do not do; each one goes his own way. Instead of 
showing with the “greatest cogency” that b is dependent on a, 
this passage reveals the independence of ὁ. 


4:15 ,,Und ganz gleicher Weise scheint der Plural ‘gentes de 

longinguo, improbas etc.’ in Vetlat. Ὁ. aus dem in Vetlat. 

a. per epizeuxin wiederholten ‘gentem’ entstanden zu 

sein, es miisste denn (sehr unwahrscheinlich!) der in 

᾿ς Vetlat. a. folgende Pluralausdruck: ‘gui non sunt reveriti 

senem neque puerorum misertz sunt’ (in Vetlat. Ὁ. verkiirzt: 

‘quae seni et juveni misericordiam non praestiterunt’) in 
Vetlat. b. ruckwarts wirkend ‘gentes’ erzeugt haben”. 


Again’a follows the Greek text closely from which ὃ varies. 
Therefore it is inferred that ὃ is dependent on a! No one knows 
why b has used the plural “gentes” instead of repeating “gentem”, 
but that the reasoning of Kneucker on this passage applies with 
as much foree to the Greek itself as it does to a, cannot be 
doubted. The context makes very improbable any influence of a 
upon ὃ, so let it speak for itself: emyyayev yap ex’ avrovs εθνος 
μακροθεν εθνος x.7.A., α adduxit enim super illos gentem de longin- 
_ quo, gentem etc., b Qui suscitavit ad eos gentes de longinquo ete. 
The Greek text could be recovered from a by retranslation, but 
not from b. 

According to Kneucker the six passages that have been examined, 
together with a better Latin style, prove that b is dependent on a. 
It is evident that Kneucker’s deductions agree with a precon- 
ceived theory of the relation of the Latin versions to each other. 
For in every case there are several possibilities of which one has 
been chosen, often not the most probable one, because it agreed 
with the view that had been adopted. 

Furthermore, Kneucker claims that Vetlat. Ὁ. verriith ihre 
Abhangigkeit von Vetlat. a. und ihr jiingeres Alter durch ihr 
besseres Latein (op. cit. p. 159). The evidence to show that b 
uses better Latin than a, he has formulated in eleven propositions 
which may be summarized as follows: b as compared with a (1) 
prefers the relative construction, (2) substitutes dynamic relations 
for mechanical ones, (3) removes the enallage of number, (4) 


36 R. R. Harwell, 


changes the person, (5) chooses more correct expressions and 
relations, (6) seeks to abbreviate the narrative as much as pos- 
sible, (7) sometimes omits the second or third member of repeated 
expressions, (8) substitutes a pronoun for an omitted abstract 
noun, (9) leaves pronouns untranslated, (10) removes cireum- 
locutions as superfluous, and (11) presumably exaggerations are 
omitted (op. cit. pp. 154 f.). 

It will be shown in the discussion of the next topic that the 
translator of b varies both from the standard Greek and from a 
in double as many cases as he improves upon the renderings of 
a. Five of the above propositions relate to some form of omission. 
In all these cases b has omitted the Greek as well as a, only the 
conflations of the latter are an exception. 


4. Old Latin b Independent of Old Latin a. 


Next to its independent additions, the most striking charac- 
teristic of b as contrasted with a and the corresponding Greek, 
is its large number of omissions. A few of these are doubtless due 
to the accidents of transmission, but this explanation does not 
apply to the most of them, and it is certainly not convincing to 
argue that the translator of b had all of this omitted material 
before him in the version of a and in the Greek text which @ 
implies. 

There are 2433 words in a and 2226 in the corresponding text — 
of b. These omissions are found in all parts of the book with a 
minimum difference between a and b of seven words in the third 
chapter and a maximum difference of 117 words in the second 
chapter. This characteristic distinction between the two versions 
may be illustrated by their respective uses of the Divine name. 
In a there are seventy-six occurrences of the word “Deus” or 
“Dominus Deus”; six of these have been omitted by b, in six 
other cases one part of the compound, “Dominus Deus”, has. 
been omitted, and in three cases a pronoun has been substituted. 
On the other hand ὃ uses the Divine name in five instances which 
are not found in a; four of these, however, have the authority 
of B. 

Another feature of the shorter text of b that shows its inde- 
pendence of a, is its treatment of temporal designations. The 
indefinite phrases, “as this day” and “unto this day”, occur 
in ἃ and in the Greek seven times, 1:13, 15, 19, 20; 2:6, 11, 26; 


Versions of Baruch. 37 


two of these 1:13, 20, are omitted by b. The Greek and a have 
two definite dates: the first is, “in anno quinto, in septimo mensis 
in tempore quo ceperunt Chaldaei Jerusalem et succenderunt eam 
igni” (1:2). According to ὃ Baruch wrote “post annum quin- 
tum, et mensem septimum”, which might have been at any time 
during his subsequent life. The second definite date occurs in 1:8 
which states that Baruch with the vessels of the Temple returned 
to Judaea “decima die mensis Sivan”. This definite date has 
been omitted by b, whose point of view is quite different from that 
of a and of the standard Greek. 

In the use of the Divine name and of temporal designations a 
has followed the Greek, but a is without Greek authority for its 
conflate readings which have also lengthened its text. These con- 
flations are not numerous, but are very important, because the 
fact that the translator of b betrays no knowledge of them is 
strong evidence that he did not have the text of a before him. 
They are as follows: 


1:18 και yrebyoapev. (1) et non credidimus, (2) diffidentes, (3) 
non fuimus subjectibiles. The first is probably the original 
translation, the second represents a marginal reading, and 
the third is from ηθετησαμεν, a variant which is supported 
by ὃ and the Syriac. 

2:19 ypes καταβαλλομεν τον ελεον. (1) nos fundimus preces, (2) 
et petimus misericordiam. In the source, Dan. 9:18, Theo- 
dotion has ριπτουμεν and the LXX. has deopefa; the same 
distinction exists between the two parts of this Latin 
conflation. 

2:21 (κλινατε)ὴ τὸν ὠμὸν vawv. (1) humerum vestrum, (2) et 
cervicem vestram. Although in Jeremiah the Greek always 
uses εἰσαγειν or εμβαλλειν τον τραχῆλον and never kAwev wpor, 
yet it is quite certain that Jeremiah 27:8, 9, 12, is the 
source of this verse. The first rendering is exact, yet because 
it did not agree with the source, it is probable that the read- 
ing of Jeremiah was first noted on the margin and then it 
found its way into the text. 

2:23 εκλειψειν romow . . . φωνην. (1) defectionem vestram 
faciam, (2) et auferam a vobis vocem. The two Greek 
translations of "ΖΓ may have been exAewew and εκτριψειν, 
variants which are found in Jeremiah 36:29, and in the 
Syriac conflation of this passage. 


38 R. R. Harwell, 


3:23 τῆς ovvecews. (1) prudentiae, (2) et intelligentiae. 
4:28 επιστραφεντες. (1) convertentes, (2) iterum. The well- 
known use of 5)¥/ to denote repetition has led to this con- 
flation, for this Latin indicates that at least one Greek 
translator had rendered the Hebrew idiomatically. 
5:1 την evrpemav. (1) decore, (2) et honore. 


If then the translator of b was so dependent on a as Kneucker 
and those who agree with him claim, how shall we account for 
his different treatment of fifteen cases of the Divine name? for 
his removal of definite dates? and for his avoidance of confla- 
tions? According to the canons of criticism the addition of the 
Divine name and the presence of conflations are just those traits 
which characterize a later text. 

Not only does the translator of b show his independence in 
this negative way, but also by his renderings which are partly 
superior and partly inferior to those of a, he furnishes convincing 
evidence that a@ was not before him. Because in some instances 
b has followed the Greek more closely than a has, the inference 
has been drawn that the improved renderings of ὃ indicated 
dependence. But in these cases it may justly be claimed that 
b was following the Greek and was not influenced by a. In the 
subjoined list are given, first the Greek text, secondly the render- 
ing of a, and thirdly the more accurate rendering of b. 1:4 
puxpov, @ minimo, ὃ pusillo; peyadov, a maximum, ὃ magnum; 
1:8 οἰκου, a templi, ὃ domus; 1:12 δωσει, a ut det, ὃ dabit (The 
same difference is found in the rendering of four other verbs in 
this verse); 1:14 εν oxw, a in templo, ὃ in domo; 1:18 xara 
προσωπον ἡμῶν, ὦ nobis, ὃ ante faciem nostram; 2:1 και, a propter 
quod, ὃ et; 2:4 οὗ, a in quibus, ἢ quo; 2:14 efeAov, a educ, ὃ 
eripe; 2:18 κυριε, α Domino, ὃ Domine; 2:19 καταβαλλομεν, a 
fundimus, b jactamus; 2:25 zovypos, a pessimis, ὃ malis; 2:26 
oxov, ὦ templum, ὃ domum; 3:11 pera των εἰς gdov, a@ cum 
descendentibus in infernum, b cum his qui sunt apud inferos; 
3:14 fy, a victus, ὃ vita; 3:21 οδου, a facie, ὃ via; 4:1 
αποθανουνται, @ in mortem, ὃ morientur; 4:3 τὰ συμφεροντα, a 
dignitatem, ὃ utilitates; 4:6 παροργισαι, a in ira ad iracundiam 
provocastis, ἢ irritastis; 4:9 εἐπελθουσαν, a venientem, ὃ super- 
venientem; 4:12 καταλειφθεισῃ, a desolatam, ὃ relicta sum; 
npnpobnv, a derelicta sum, ἢ desolata sum; 4:22 owrnpos, a salutari, 


er a) ee ew αν ὼΣ 


=< ΎΥΎΣ 


Ee a ΡΥ 


Versions of Baruch. 39 


ἢ salvatore; 4:24 ὠσπερ yap νυν, a sicut enim, b nam sicut nunc; 
4:31 ry on πτωσει, α in tua ruina, b in casu tuo; 4:32 Sera, a 
punientur, ὃ miserae; 5:3 ony, a suum, ὃ tuum; 5:9 ηγήσεται, 
a adducet, b praeibit; 1:14 avayvwoecbe, a legite, ὃ legetis; 1:20 
ἢ apa, ἃ maledictiones, ὃ maledicto; 1:22 ποιησαι, a facientes, 
b facere; 2:14 δεησεως, a orationes, ὃ orationem; 2:24 yKovcaper, 
a audierunt, ὃ audivimus; 2:30 αἀκουσουσι, a audiet, ὃ audient; 
3:7 em xapdvav, α in cordibus, ὃ in corde; 3:21 εγενηθησαν, a facta 
est, ὃ facti sunt; 3:27 εδωκεν avros, a invenerunt, ὃ dedit illis; 
3:35 εκαλεσεν avtous, ὦ vocatae sunt, b vocavit eas; 4:5 θαρσειτε, 
ὦ animaequior esto, b constantes estote; 4:14 μνησθητε, a 
memorentur, b mementote; 4:18 ex χειρος, a de manibus, b de 
manu; 4:32 δειλαια, a punientur, ὃ miserior; 4:34 περιελῶ, a 
amputabitur, ὃ amputabo; 5:2 περιβαλου, a circumdabit te, ὁ 
circumda te; 5:2 επιθου, a imponet, ὃ impone; 5:7 ταπεινουσθαι, 
a humiliare, ὃ humiliari; 5:7 zAnpovoba, a replere, b repleri. 
In the above forty-seven cases the independence of the trans- 
lator of b is seen positively in his choice of a better synonym, 
or of a more accurate form of the verb or noun than a had selected. 
There are, however, many cases in which the rendering of ὃ is 
not so exact as that of a, as an examination of the following list 
will show: 1:4 πρεσβυτερων, a presbyterorum, ὃ seniorum; 1:5 
ηύχοντο evavtiov, ὦ orabant in conspectu, b adorantes; 1:7 tepes, 
a sacerdotes, ὃ caeteros; 1:17 wv ἡμάρτομεν, a peccavimus, b cum 
quibus peccavimus; 1:19 τοὺς πατερας ἡμων, a patres nostros, b 
nos; 1:19 απειθουντες προς, a incredibiles ad, ὃ contumaces in; 
1:20 ta κακα καὶ ἡ apa, a@ mala et maledictiones, ὃ mala in 
maledicto; 2:4 avrovs υποχειριους, ὦ eos sub manu, ὃ nos subditos; 
2:11 ἐν σημειοις, a in signis, b cum signis; 2:21 ovtws, a sic, ὃ 
haec; 2:24 του εξενεχθηναι, a ut transferrentur, b ut ejicerentur; 
2:33 amo του νωτου αὐτων Tov oxAnpov, a a dorso suo duro, b a duritia 
cordis sul; 2:35 azo τῆς γῆς ys ἐδωκα αὑὔτοις, a a terra quem dedi illis, 
b de terra sua; 3:2, 4, 7 εναντιον σου, a ante te, ὃ in conspectu 
tuo; 3:4 των τεθνηκοτων, a mortuorum, ἢ defunctorum; 3:4 
εκολληθη, a agglutinata sunt, ὃ adhaeserunt; 3:5 μη μνησθῃς, a 
noli meminisse, ὃ ne memor fueris; 3:7 τὸ ovoya cov, a@ nomen 
tuum, ὃ te; 3:12 σοφιας, a sapientiae, ὃ vitae; 3:13 επορευθης, 
a ambulasses, b ambulares; 3:14 φρονησις, a prudentia, ὃ sapientia ; 
μακροβιωσις, a longiturnitas vitae, b longiturnitas virtus; 3:23 
οἱ ἐκζητουντες, α qui exquirunt, ὃ quaerunt; 3:32 κτηνων rerparodoy, 


40 Rk. R. Harwell, 


a pecufidibus et quadrupedibus, ἢ pecudibus; 3:33 ὁ αἀποστελλων, 
a emittit, ὃ jussit fieri; zopevera, a vadit, ὃ ortum est; υπηκουσεν 
avtw, a obedit illi, ὃ obaudivit; 3:35 ἐλαμψαν, a luxerunt, ὃ lucem 
dederunt; 4:3 δοξαν, a gloriam, ὃ gratiam; addotpw, a alienae, 
b advenae; 4:6 δια de το, a sed propter quod, ὃ quoniam; 4:6, 
8, 9, 12 θεον, a Deum, ὃ Dominum; 4:8 τροφευσαντα, a nutrivit, 
δ salvavit; 4:9 παροικοι, a confines, ἢ civitates; 4:12 emyampero 
μοι, α gaudeat super me, ὃ in me exultet; 4:13 θεου, a Dei, ὃ 
illius; 4:19 βαδιζετε, a ambulate, ὃ abite; 4:20 εξεδυσαμὴν, a 
exui me, ὃ exui; ενεδυσαμὴν Se, a indui autem me, ὃ et indui; 
σακκον, a sacco, ὃ cilicium; 4:22 σωτηριαν, a salutem, ὃ salvatorem; 
και ηλθεν, a et venit, ὃ quia veniet; 4:29 erage, a adducet, ὃ dabit; 
4:37 ρηματι του αγιου, a in verbo sancti, ὃ verbo Domini; 5:1 
evdvoat, a indue te, ὃ indue; 5:6 aoaye, a adducit, ὃ reducit; 5:7 
βαδισῃ, α ambulet, ὃ ingrediatur. 

1:10 περι αμαρτιας, a pro peceato, ὃ pro peccatis; 1:15 καὶ 
epete, a et dicetis, ὃ legerunt; 2:17 eAnudOy τὸ πνευμα, a spiritus — 
acceptus est, b spiritus accepti sunt; δικαίωμα τω κυριω, a justifi- 
cationem Domino, ὃ justificationes tibi; 2:18 ψυχη, a anima, ὃ 
animae; 2:19 δικαιίωματα, a justitias, ὃ justificationem; 2:29 
ev Tos εθνεσιν, a inter gentes, ὃ gentem; 2:33 odov, a viam, ὃ vias; 
3:3 nye ἀπολλυμενοι, a nos peribimus, b ne perdideris nos; 3:5 
αδικιων, α iniquitatum, b iniquitatis; 3:22 ἠκουσθη, a est audita, 
b auditum est; ὠφθη, a visa est, ὃ visum; 4:5 Aaos, a populus, 
δ populi; 4:5 μνημονευσον, a memorabilis, b memorabiles; 4:13 
δικαιωματα, α justitias, ὃ justitiam; 4:14 ελθατωσαν, a veniant, ὃ 
venite; 4:15 vos, a gentem, ἢ gentes; 4:16 ηρημωσαν, a 
desolaverunt, ὃ desolati sunt; 4:22 καὶ ηλθεν, a et venit, ὃ quia 
veniet; 4:25 owe, a videbis, ὃ videbitis; επιβησῃ, a ascendes, ἢ 
ascendetis; σε, a te, ὃ vos; 4:26 επορευθησαν, a ambulaverunt, ὃ 
ambulastis; ηρθησαν, a ducti sunt, ὃ ducti estis; 4:36 epyouerny, 
a venientem, ἢ superventura est; 4:37 epyovra, a veniunt, ὃ 
venient. 

1:8 εν tw λαβειν avrov τα σκευὴ οἰκου Kupiov Ta εξενεχθεντα εκ TOV 
vaov αποστρεψαι es γην Ιουδα, α cum acciperet vasa templi Domini ~ 
quae ablata fuerant de templo revocare in terram Juda, ὃ et ut 
acciperent vasa domo Domini quae ablata fuerant de templo terrae 
Juda in Babylonia; 1:13 καὶ οὐκ απεστρεψεν, a et non est aversus, 
b si forsitan avertatur; 3:3 or ov καθημενος, a quia tu sedes, ὃ tu 
qui regnas; 3:30 ove αὐτὴν. χρυσιου exAexrov, a attulit illam super 


a ee Le, LU 


i sh ee γος 


Versions of Baruch. 41 


aurum electum, ὃ praetulit auro electo; 4:10 επηγαγεν avross, 


a@ superduxit illis, ὃ super omnes induxit; 4:15 exyyayev yap en’ 


avrous, α adduxit enim super illos, b qui suscitavit ad eos; 4:16 
οὐκ ῃσχυνθησαν πρεσβυτὴης ovde παιδιον ἡλεησαν, ἃ Non sunt reveriti 
senem neque puerorum miserti sunt, b seni et juveni misericordiam 
non praestiterunt; 4:17 τι δυνατὴ βοηθησαι vw, a quid possum 
adjuvare vos?, b non possum juvare vos; 4:18 ὁ yap exayaywv ra 
kaka ὑμιν, ὦ qui enim adduxit super vos mala, b sed Dominus, qui 
vobis haec mala intulit; 4:25 μακροθυμησατε τὴν opynv, a patienter 
sustinete iram, ὃ patientes estote quia per iram; 4:27 eora: yap 
ὕμωὼν ὑπὸ TOV ETayovTOS μνεια, ὦ eit enim memoria vestra ab eo qui 
duxit vos, b erit enim illi pro vestra captivitate memoria; 4:28 
woTep yap eyeveto ἢ διανοια ὕμων εἰς TO πλανηθηναι απὸ Tov θεου, a sicut 
enim fuit sensus vester ut erraretis a Deo, b sicut errastis a Deo; 
δεκαπλασιασατε emotpadevtes ζητησαι αὐτὸν, a decies tantum iterum 
convertentes requiretis eum, ὃ multipliciter conversi quaeritis. 

This list contains more than ninety cases in which a follows 
the Greek text closely and the rendering of b is less exact. Nega- 
tively, this is evidence that points to the independence of b, 
because with a and the corresponding Greek before him, it is 
extremely improbable that the translator of b would have so 
often chosen the less accurate rendering which from the point 
of view of the standard Greek text is in many instances not a 
rendering, but an arbitrary substitution. 


5. Old Latin b an Earlier Version than Old Latin a. 


The renderings in which the Latin versions agree do not in 
themselves show which is the earlier version, and even the few 
special agreements of a with b give no clue to show which is the 
borrower. Similar Greek authority will account for ordinary 
Latin renderings which are identical, so that the earlier date 
of b must be inferred from the more general characteristics of the 
two versions, to which may be added the evidence of [renaeus. 

The point of view of a is that of the standard Greek text; 
only in the conflate readings has a added to this text. It cannot 
be questioned that a is at least later than the time when the book 
of Baruch had been definitely separated from the book of Jere- 
miah; this had taken place by the time of Origen’s Hexapla as . 
may be inferred from the Syro-Hexaplar version. On the other 
hand b is based upon a Greek text in which Baruch has not yet 


42 R. R. Harwell, 


been separated from Jeremiah, for it begins with Jer. 52:12, and 
its point of view is different from the later Greek text in the 
following instances: 

1:13 a, ad aures Jechoniae filii Joakim; b, ad aures Sedechiae 
filii Joachim. This reading of ὃ is contrary to his reading in 
1:8, yet it is probable that Greek authority was found for each 
case. 

1:8 a, cum acciperet vasa . . . revocare in terram Juda; b, 
et ut acciperent vasa domus. The Greek and a represent Baruch 
as receiving the vessels of the Temple in order that he might 
return them to Jerusalem on the.tenth of Sivan. According to 
b it is the priests and people in Jerusalem who receive the vessels 
and not Baruch in Babylon, while the verb “return” and the 
definite date are omitted. 

1:15 a, habitantibus in Jerusalem; ὃ, qui migratus est ab 
Jerusalem. This is an entirely different point of view. 

1:19 a, patres nostros; b, nos. 

2:4 a, eos sub manu; b, nos subditos. In these two cases the 
speaker in b identifies himself with the exiles, which is contrary 
to a and the Greek. It may be permitted to add here the bearing 
of b upon a distinction which Marshall has pointed out in the 
confession 1:15-3:8, and in regard to which Charles says, “Thus 
it is the Exiles clearly who are speaking in 2:13, 14; 3:7, 8. 
On the other hand the speakers in the confession in 1:15-2:5 
are clearly the remnant in Jerusalem.” (Encycl. Brit. 11 ed. vol. 
3, p. 453.) 

The incongruity of making those who are in exile write a con- 
fession of sin for those who are still in their native land, is 
justified by the Greek of 1:15 and 2:4. This point of view, 
however, is a later one which the authority of b did not have. 
According to ὃ the confession in 1:15 was not for “the men of 
Judaea and the inhabitants of Jerusalem”, as the standard text 
has it, but for “omni Juda, qui migratus est ab Jerusalem,” that 
is, for those in exile. Likewise the distinction of the standard 
text in 2:4, “And he gave them to be in subjection to all the 
kingdoms that are round about us . . . where the Lord scattered 
them,” is not supported by b which has only the point of view 
of the exiles, “Et dedit nos subditos omnibus regnis, quae in 
’ cireuitu nostro sunt, . . . quo dispersit nos Dominus.” 


ee a a eee 


Versions of Baruch. 43 


Another general characteristic of @ as compared with ὁ, is 
that the translation of the former is more mechanical than that 
of the latter. Wherever it is possible to compare successive stages 
in a version, or successive versions, with one another, it is found 
that the earlier renderings are freer and more idiomatic than 
the later. For example, the Greek of the Pentateuch is superior 
to the mechanical renderings found in Kings and Jeremiah. 
The Syriac versions of the Gospels also show the same difference; 
the earliest version, the Old Syriac, is free and idiomatic, the 
latest, the Peshitto, follows the Greek closely, while the Curetonian 
occupies an intermediate position in time and in character of 
translation. If the same general rule applies to the Latin versions 
of Baruch, then the date of b is certainly earlier than that of a. 

The early Church Fathers frequently quote the last three verses 
of the third chapter of Baruch, but these quotations give us 
no help in determining the relative ages of the Latin versions 
because they are almost identical in these verses. Irenaeus, how- 
ever, has quoted the last eleven verses of the book. This quotation 
in its Latin form agrees more closely with b than with a. In 
the following lists only identical renderings are given. Those 
common to a and Irenaeus are: 4:37 collecti . . . usque ad 
occidentem . . . sancti, 5:2 justitiae, 5:4 Deo, 5:5 in 
excelso . . . collectos . . . usque ad occidentem, 5:6 portatos, 
5:7 ambulet. In 5:1 Iren. and a have added an “et” which 
b omits. | 

The cases in which ὃ and Irenaeus agree are: 4:37 
venient . . . emisisti, 5:2 a Deo . .. impone.. . gloriae 
aeternae, 5:3 tuum, 5:4 vocabitur . . . aeternum, 5:5 solis 
ortu, 5:6 Deus . . . cum gloria, 5:8 odoris . . . praecepto, 
5:9 praeibit . . . laetitia. Moreover, Irenaeus and ὃ agree in 
omitting seven words that occur in a, namely, 4:37 enim, 
dispersos, 5:1 te, et honore, 5:4 tibi, 5:8 et. These omissions 
are strong evidence that b antedates a, because these omissions are 
not affected by the Latin translation of Irenaeus and because 
both Iren. and ὃ do not have the conflation of a that is produced 
by the addition of “et honore” (5:1). 

We therefore conclude that the concurrence of these general 
lines of evidence proves that b is the earlier version. 


44 R. R. Harwell, 


6. Old Latin b Descended from a Greek Text which Antedates 
the Standard Text. | 


It is the generally accepted view that during the second and 
third centuries A. D. there were in existence many widely vary- 
ing versions and recensions of parts of the Greek Old Testament, 
but not so clear is the working of those harmonizing influences 
which finally in the fourth century resulted in approximately a 
standard text. 

By 100 A. D. the limits of the Hebrew canon had been 
definitely determined along with a fixed mode of interpretation. 
As the Greek Bible differed considerably from the Hebrew Bible 
both in extent of the canon and in the contents of the text, many 
new Greek versions of the Hebrew text appeared. The consequent 
confusion was increased by the distribution of Christian scholar- 
ship among several centers of equal ecclesiastical authority. This 
condition existed for more than two centuries during which the 
most successful effort to bring order out of the chaos of differ- 
ing Greek versions was Origen’s Hexapla. This put an end to 
the original form of the old Greek text. Yet even the Hexapla 
would not have exercised so great a harmonistic influence if the 
different centers of ecclesiastical authority had continued to be 
equal. In the meantime, however, the importance of Rome as 
the seat of the Church had been increasing until it became 
dominant in the fourth century A. D. The influence of the 
Roman Church had been placed on the side of Origen so that 
by the end of this same century there had come into existence 
by a harmonizing process a Greek text which may be called the 
standard text, with which all the extant Greek codices substantially 
agree. Then as time passed the divergent versions which lacked 
the approval of the Church vanished, but not without leaving 
behind some traces, of which the O. L. b of Baruch is an impor- 
tant one. For this book b has a relation to the Old Greek similar 
to that which the Old Syriac of the Gospels has to the corre- 
sponding Greek. : 

It is asserted by Kneucker that the additions, omissions and 
variations of b are due to the exegesis of the translator (op. cit. 
p. 156). This is equivalent to saying that b is not a pure version, 
but is a mixture of translation and commentary. There is one, 
and only one, justification for such an assertion, and that is 


eC tC 


Versions of Baruch. 45 


the assumption that the standard text of the fourth century 
A. D. was the authority which ὃ used. This assumption, however, 
is groundless. That b has no conflations shows that its text has 
not had marginal corrections made from other versions, which 
later crept into the text; that b has a shorter text shows that it 
has not been conformed to the standard text; that b has many 
independent additions and frequently a different point of view 
shows that it has eseaped the harmonizing process which Origen’s 
work began and upon which the dominant Church set her seal. 
It is admitted that the translator of b was a better Latinist than 


that of a, and without evidence we are not justified in asserting 


that he was less faithful to his authorities than a was. A casual 
glance at the Syro-Hexaplar text of Jeremiah with its well filled 
margins, or at the critical apparatus for Ezekiel in Swete’s Old 
Testament in Greek, should suggest caution in accusing a trans- 
lator of arbitrariness in a book that shared the history of the 


-prophetical literature in Greek during the early Christian 


centuries. 

The evidence that the Greek text which ὃ represents antedates 
the standard text may now be advanced. The extant Greek text 
of Baruch is an expanded form with two hundred words more 
than those which the Greek authority of b contained. A few 
of these additions which do not appear in ὃ are: 1:3 καὶ ev wor 
παντὸς Tov Aoyou των ἐρχομένων προς τὴν βιβλον, 1:7 as Ἱερουσαλημ, 
1:8 ry Sexary του Σειουαν, 1: 14 εξαγορευσαι. . . και ἡμεραις καιρου, 
2:18 τῆς καρδιας, 2:14 και τῆς δεησεως ἡμων, 3:8 πασας, 4:26 
ἡρπασμενον, 5:1 εἰς τον αἰωνα. 

The variations of b from the standard text also point to an 
earlier date for the authority of b, as it is difficult to see how 
they could have arisen after the standard text became authori- 
tative. The list of these variations has already been given as 
evidence to show that ὃ is not dependent on a (see III, sect. 4 
above). For illustration a few cases may be repeated: 1:2 εν rw 
ere. τω πεμπτω, ἢ post annum quintum; 1:15 και τοις κατοικουσιν 
Ιερουσαλημ, ὃ qui migratus est ab Jerusalem; 1:18 ηπειθησαμεν, 
b contempsimus; 3:3 ov καθήμενος, ὃ tu regnas; 4:8 τροφευσαντα, ὃ 
salvavit. 

Again, the independent additions of ὃ show that the text on 
which it was based belonged to a period antedating that of a text 


46 | R. R. Harwell, 


which had been subjected to the harmonizing influence of one 
central authority. Some of these additions are: 1:2 de tribu 
Simeon . . . cujus libri verba sunt in subjecto, et misit in 
Jerusalem, 1:3, 8 in Babylonia, 1:7 magnum, 1:8 aurea et, 1:14, 
15 quem cum accepissent legerunt: in quo fuit scriptum 
hoc . . . ruboris in, 2:9 operibus nostris . . . mala, 3:9 et 
cum explicuisset librum orationis captivorum, accipiens spiritus 
vocem, Jerusalem locutus est, dicens, 3:3 mecum, 4:18 dominus, 
4:31 facti sunt, 4:33 Babylon, 5:3 creaturae. 

The most important addition, however, is that found at the 
beginning of the book; here prefixed to the ordinary text are 
found twelve verses which contain all the essential facts of Jer. 
52:12-34. The early Church Fathers ascribe to Jeremiah their 
quotations from Baruch, so that it is reasonable to infer that in 
their manuscripts no definite line of demarcation existed between 
these two books. But when the separation was made at least one 
of the several centers of church authority made a division dif- 
ferent from the rest, so that two dissimilar forms of beginning 
the book were in existence. The unified church gave its approval 
to the form of the standard text, while the other escaped oblivion 
only in a translation. 

This evidence, both internal and external, is sufficient to prove 
that the Greek text from which b was translated antedated the 
standard text. Moreover it is probable that in b we have a 
representative of the Old Greek text which contained readings 
that are found distributed in all later recensions and versions 
as well as some that Theodotion adopted in his revision of the 
text. Since these readings have in no case produced an expanded 
text in ὃ it is reasonable to infer that b represents “a text which 
had not been contaminated by the later versions. In this con- 
nection it should be remembered that a version of Daniel so 
important as the LXX. has been preserved to us by means of a 
single manuscript, the codex Chisianus, because the early Church’ 
preferred Theodotion’s version. Also, that the Old Greek text 
of Chron.-Ezr.-Neh. has been lost with the exception of a single 
fragment which was preserved as “1 Esdras” (see Torrey, Hzra 
Studies, p. 81). ! 


; 
; 
; 
> 
4 
ξ 


Versions of Baruch. 47 


7. The Latin Recension of Baruch according to the Codex 
Gothicus Legionensis. 


A third Latin translation of Baruch has been published by 


6. Hoberg under the title, Die dlteste Lateinische Uebersetzung des 


Buches Baruch (Freiburg i. B. 1902). This translation, which 
is really a recension of O. L. b, was copied by Hoberg from a 
Vatican manuscript of the sixteenth century. The book. of 
Baruch, however, in this Vatican manuscript is a copy of the 
manuscript known as the Codex Gothicus Legionensis. The latter 
bears the date 960, and is preserved in the Archives of the College 
of St. Isidore at Leén in Spain. 

_ According to Hoberg a comparison of the text of Cod. Leg., 
which we shall indicate by the letter c, with the texts of a, of 
b and of the Greek leads to the following results: . 

(1) ¢ agrees in many passages with the Greek text where a 
varies from it. 

(2) In other passages c and a agree fully. 

(3) In many passages in which ¢ agrees with the Greek text 
against a, b is like, or almost like c. 

Without special proof Hoberg draws the following conclusions: 

(1) ¢ is the oldest Latin translation. 

(2) The translation ὁ lay before the translator of a in its 
original form. 

(3) The author of b was acquainted with and used both ¢ and a. 

This recently published Latin text is not referred to by White- 
house in Charles’ Apocrypha. It was reviewed, however, by 
Schiirer, who regards a, ὃ and c¢ as three recensions of a lost 
original translation. After quoting Hoberg’s conclusions (see 
above), Schiirer expresses his own judgment in regard to them 
as follows: ,,Hiervon halte ich nur die beiden ersten Satze fiir 
richtig, den dritten aber fiir falsch. Dem Autor von Sab. [= δ] 
wird damit eine seltsam gekiinstelte Arbeitsweise zugetraut” 
(Theo. itz. 08, p. 376). Schiirer, therefore, regards c as the 
oldest Latin recension and also believes that it lay before the 
translator of a. 

We submit, however, that not one of Hoberg’s conclusions is 
justified by the facts. A detailed comparison of the text of b with 
that of c (= Cod. Leg.) shows that the latter is based on the 
former. The language of b and c is identical to so great a degree 


48 R. R. Harwell, 


that examples are unnecessary. The present text of c, however, 
is the result of a harmonizing process in which a text essentially 
the same as ὃ has been made to agree with the standard Greek 
text. In all phases of his harmonistic work the corrector has 
slavishly followed the Greek text that lay before him. A few 
examples will be given to show the corrector’s method of work. 

(1) In producing the text of ¢ the free renderings of b have 
been made to agree closely with the standard Greek text, as 


1:5 και εκλαιον Kat ενηστευον καὶ YVXOVTO εναντιον κυριου. 
b et jejunaverunt cum fletu adorantes Dominum. 
ὁ et flebant et ieiunabant et orabant in conspectu Domini. 
:7 τον lepea Kat προς ιερεις. 
b sacerdotem magnum et ad caeteros. 
c sacerdotem et ad sacerdotes. 
15 avOpwrw Iovda και τοις κατοικουσιν TepovoadAnp. 
b omni Juda qui migratus est ab Jerusalem. 
c homini Iuda et habitatori Ierusalem. 
2:6 τω κυριω θεω nuov ἡ δικαιοσυνη. 
b ipsi justitia. 
ec Domino Deo nostro iustitia. 
2:25 τω καυματι της ἡμερας. 
b in aestu solis. 
c in ealore diel. 
3:3 ott ov καθημενος. 
b tu qui regnas. 
¢ quia tu sedens es. 
3:8 καὶ es apav και es οφλησιν. 
b et maledictum in gentes. 
c et in maledictum et in debitum. 
3:34 οι Se aorepes ἐελαμψαν ev ταις pvdAakais avTwv. 
b cujus imperio stellae splendificatae sunt. 
c stellae autem splenduerunt in custodiis suis. 
: 12. μηδεις επιχαιρετω μοι TH χήρα και καταλειφθειση. 
b nemo in me exsultet quia vidua relicta sum. 
¢ nemo in me exsultet viduam et derelictam. 


ead 


μαι 


ΗΝ 


The above list could be easily increased from any part of the 
book; and to further emphasize the fact that the author of c 
adhered rigidly to his authority, two cases of unusual interest 
are added: : 


eee eal ἐ ᾿ 
δον μ ΕΝΝΝνκωνα,, κϑωι, .. 


= eo ΨΥ, 


eee ὙΦ ΝΎ | oe ΡΝ 


Versions of Baruch. 49 


4:28 δεκαπλασιασατε επιστραφεντες ζητησαι avrov. 
ΟΡ multipliciter conversi quaeritis eum. 
ὁ decuplabitis tantum conversi quaerere eum. 
4:31, 32 δειλαιοι, -ac (Cod. A δηλαιοι, -ar). 
ἢ miseri, -ae. 
ἃ manifesti, -ae. 


(2) More than two hundred words of the Greek text, which 
are not represented in b, have been regularly supplied in ὁ from 
the standard Greek text. The determining factor in this har- 
monizing process was a literal translation of the Greek without 
the influence of a, as numerous instances show.. For example: 


1:14 εν ἡμερα eoprys και ev ἡμέραις Kaipov. 

b in die solemni. 

ὁ in die solemni et in die temporis. 

a in die solemni et in die opportuno. 
1:20 γαλα και μελι ws ἡ ἡμέρα avTy. 

b lacte et melle. 

c lae et mele sicut hic dies. 

a lac et mel sicut hodierna die. 


2:2 vroxatw παντὸς Tov ovpavov. 


b sub caelo. 
¢ sub omni eaelo. 
a sub eaelo. 


bo 


: 18 ἀλλα ἡ Wyn ἡ λυπουμενὴ Em TO μεγεθος. 
b sed animae tristes. : 
ὁ sed anima anxia in amplitudine. 
a sed anima quae tristis est super magnitudine mali. 


2:27 και εποιῆσας es ἡμας. 


b et fecisti. 
c¢ et fecisti in nos. 
a et fecisti in nobis. 


eo 


: 92. κτηνων τετραποδων. 

b pecudibus. 

6 lumentis quadrupedibus. 

a pecudibus et quadrupedibus. 
4:28 womep yap eyeveto ἡ διανοια vpwv εἰς το πλανηθηναι. 
b sicut errastis. 
ec nam sicut fuit mens vestra ut erraretis. 
a sicut enim fuit sensus vester ut erraretis. 

4 


50 R. R. Harwell, 


(3) The additions of b which have no authority in the standard 
Greek text have been systematically removed. A few eases of 
single words may be given, as 


1:20 τα κακα και 7 apa. 
b omnia mala in maledicto. 
c mala et maledictio. 
3:10 εν yn των εχθρων ει. 
b in terra es inimicorum tuorum. 
c in terra es inimicorum. 
3:16 οἱ κυριεύοντες Tov θηριων. 
b qui dominantur super bestias. 
¢ qui dominantur bestiis. 
4:1 as ζωην. 
b pervenient ad vitam. 
ς ad vitam. 
5:2 τῆς παρα του θεου δικαιοσυνης. 
b quia a Deo tibi est justitia. 
c a Deo iustitiae. 


(4) In a few cases, however, the corrector has failed to remove 
an additional word of the earliest Latin text. These examples, 
though few, are very important, since (in view of the evident 
zeal to conform to the Greek text) they point unmistakably to 
the derivation of ¢ from b. 


1:15 αισχυνη tov προσωπων. 
b confusio ruboris in facie. 
e econfusio ruboris in facie. 
1:18 πορεύεσθαι (ev) τοις προσταγμασι κυριου. τ 
b ut iremus in praecepta et in mandata ejus. 
c ut iremus in praeceptis et in mandatis eius. 
2:4 εν πασι τοις λαοις. 
b et omnibus populis. 
6 et in omnibus populis. 


The “et” of b, if not a corruption of “in”, gives an interpreta- 
tion different from that required by the Greek, yet it escaped the 
corrector of ς who inserted “in”; he certainly would not have 
added the “et”. 

(5) The corrector of c has followed a Greek text closely related 
to that of codex A with occasional readings which are found 


ase 


a 


Versions of Baruch. 51 


chiefly in the cursives 22, 36, 48, 51, 62, 96, 231. The few words 
that have been omitted in ¢ are due to clerical error. The most 
important are: 


1:8 ἀαποστρεψαι, 2:15 επεκληθη, 2:17 wv ἐλημφθη, 3:1 παντοκρατωρ, 
3:28 avrwv, 4:15 yap . . . μακροθεν, 4:25 παρα του Geov . . . avrov, 
5:1 δοξης. 


(6) Worthy of note are the misspelled words in the text of c, 
for example: 


1:20; 3:5 εκολληθη, eserunt for haeserunt; 1:22 wyxopeba, 
ibimus for ivimus; 2:1 rovs δικασαντας, 1udicabunt for iudicabant; 
2:16 evvonoov, anue for annue; 2:25 zovypos, multis for malis; 
3:2 εἰ, est for es; 3:6, 7 aweoovev, laudavimus for laudabimus; 
3:36 doywOnoera, extimabitur for aestimabitur; 3:29, 30, 37; 
4:1 avrnv, eum for eam; 4:15 παιδιον, iubinem for iuvenem; 
4:17 βοηθησαι, adiubare for adiuvare; 4:21 zpos τον θεον, ad eum 
for ad deum; 5:4 κληθησεται, vocavit for vocabit(ur); 5:5 και 
στηθι, et esta for et sta; 5:9 ηγήσεται, praeivit for praeibit. 

To these may be added one transliteration, “heremum’’, for 
ἐρημον (2:26), and one case of corruption. In 5:6 ¢ renders ws 
θρονον βασιλειας by sicut horum regem. This “horum” is an 
evident corruption of “thronum”. The initial ¢ was lost because 
of the final ¢ in the preceding word; then the impossible “hronum” 
was read as “horum”, which in turn required the change of 
“regni” into “regem”. | 

Evidence was advanced in the discussion above to show that 
b represents a pre-Origenic Greek text, and that its production is 
incredible after the standard Greek text had been approved by 
the Church and the corresponding text of a had gained currency 
(see section 6 above). Even more incredible would be the pro- 
duction of b with both the standard Greek text and the text of 
c before its author. On the other hand b with its distinct traits 
of an early translation, and ὁ with the fundamental part of its 
text identical with b and with the clearest evidence of having been 
harmonized with the later Greek text, are conclusive proof that 
b antedates c in its present form. 


IV. THE GREEK VERSION. 


The book of Baruch is found in four uncial manuscripts, 
namely, A, B, Q, 23, and in twenty-two cursives. Its text 
according to cod. A was published by Holmes and Parsons in 
their edition of the Septuagint which contains the variant read- 
ings of the remaining manuscripts except those of cod. B (Oxon. 
1798-1827). Tischendorf also included Baruch in his edition of 
the Septuagint, which was first published in 1850. His text is a 
revised Sixtine; the latter, though based on cod. B, is an edited 
text. The most satisfactory edition, however, is that of H. B. 
Swete who began publishing The Old Testament in Greek accord- 
ing to the Septuagint in 1887. The text is that of cod. B with the 
variant readings of the chief uncials printed below the text on 
each page. The book of Baruch follows that of Jeremiah in the 
third volume (Fourth Edition, Cambridge, 1912). 

The chief differences between the texts of A and B have been 
enumerated in a comparison of them with the Syro-Hexaplar 
version (see I. above). | 


1. The Greek of Baruch Translated from the Hebrew. 


The recent critics of Baruch are practically unanimous in their 
judgment that the first part of the book (1:1-3:8) has been trans- 
lated from a Hebrew original. With regard to the second part, 
however, there is much difference of opinion as to whether it was 
composed in Greek or is a translation. Kneucker and Rothstein 
are convinced that the section, 3:9-5:9 also had a Hebrew 
original. Charles is inclined to this view (see note to White- 
house’s article in Apocrypha of the O. T., p. 573). Fritzsche with 
hesitation and Schiirer with positiveness decide in favor of a 
Greek original, while Marshall and Whitehouse grant a Semitic 
original for the first poem (3:9-4:4), but deny this for the second 
(4:5-5:9). 

The codices Syro-Hexaplaris and Chisianus have concluding 
notes to Baruch which state that the entire book was under the 
obelus, from which it is inferred that a Hebrew original was 
unknown to Origen. Also the note, “Not found in the Hebrew”, 


ee a Ὑ ΡΨ ΨΥΥΥ ΤῊ 


Versions of Baruch. 53 


is probably not earlier than the Hexapla and is due to a com- 
parison of the text with the sources in the Old Testament. Even 
the variants of Theodotion doubtless owe their existence to a 
revision of the Greek text. The external evidence, therefore, does 
not prove the existence of a Hebrew original. 

An examination of the text itself, however, shows that the 
entire book is written in translation-Greek, for it contains a suffi- 
cient number of Hebraisms and mistranslations to prove that the 
Greek is a version. Important instances of words and phrases 
which require a Hebrew original for their explanation are the 
following: 1:10 περὶ ἅμαρτιας is here coordinated with ‘‘ burnt- 
offering ” and is the Greek for ANON, as its frequent occurrence 
in Ley. and Num. shows (comp. Lev. 5:7). 1:10 μαννα. In Jer. 
17:26 and 41:5 this word translates ΓΙ which the context 
requires here. The usual rendering is pavaa. 2:3 avOpwrov is 
repeated in this verse and is a rendering of UN used in its dis- 
tributive sense. 

The Hebrew construction in which WWN is followed by a pro- 


. noun, pronominal suffix, or adverb, to express the desired idea, 


appears in the Greek translation in several cases, namely, 2:2 οὗ 
er αὐτω, 2:17 ov..... αὐτων, 2:4, 18, 29; 3:8 ob .... exe. 

There occur in the text many Greek renderings which are mis- 
translations and which can be satisfactorily explained only by a 
reference to the Hebrew original. Important cases are: 

1:9 δεσμωτας. In Jer. 24:1 and 29:2 this word is used to 
render \JD% which has two different meanings, namely, ‘‘lock- 
smith” and ‘‘dungeon”. ‘The second as equivalent to ‘‘ prison- 
ers” has been incorrectly chosen by the translator. 

1:22, 2:21, 22, 24 ἐργαζεσθαι. In the second half of Jeremiah 
this word is used seven times with the meaning ‘‘ serve” to render 
IDV (comp. 27:6, 9, 11, 12), instead of the usual rendering dov- 


_Aevev. The same mistranslation occurs four times in Baruch. 


2:4 aBarov is properly an adjective and is regularly so used 
except here and in the second half of Jeremiah. In the latter it 
is frequently used to render DW (comp. 44:22; 48:9). 

2:12 em πασιν τοις δικαιωμασιν σου. According to the source, 
Dan, 9:16 (LXX,) the original of this phrase is JP Ty 555 , 80 
that the em is a misreading of 5 as 2. 

2:23 εξωθεν. This is a mistranslation of PYYINS, ‘in the 
streets”, as is clearly shown by the occurrence of the same mis- 
take six times in Jeremiah (comp. 33:10). 


54 R. R. Harwell, 


2:25 αποστολη. In Jer. 32:36 the translator has rendered the 
Hebrew 3°}, ‘‘ pestilence”, by this word which occurs in the 
same context. 

2:29 εἰ μὴν is doubtless corrected from εἰ μη, the literal transla- 
tion of NO DN, used in oaths. The Syro-Hexaplar supports this 
view with # J, ‘‘if not”. 


3:4 τεθνηκοτων is generally regarded as a misreading of "3, 


**men of”, as *SD, ‘‘dead of”. 
3:8 ofAnow. It is quite probable that INU ‘devastation ”, 
has been confused with NWI, “debt”. 


3:10 επαλαιωθης is certainly a mistranslation of 93 which was 
used in late Hebrew as a synonym of ;JJY ‘‘afflict”. The Chroni- 
cler has substituted ΓΙ in 1 Chr. 17:9 for PIP of 2 Sam. 7:10. 
See also Dan. 7:25 (Aram.) and Theodotion’s translation. 


3:23 εκζητεῖν τὴν ovveow. This phrase in slightly different form 


is unnecessarily repeated. No one but a translator would have 
done this inelegant thing. 

3:23 Meppav is unknown and probably owes its existence to a 
confusion of Daleth and Resh in 712. In Gen. 37:28 the Mid- 
ianites are roving merchants. 

3:23 Ὁ. 6 κατασκευασας. . . everAnoev. The Hebrew obviously 
had the participle with the definite article, followed by an imperfect 
consecutive. “He who prepared ... and filled... ” 


4:1 εἰς ζωην. In the original Hebrew there was certainly the 


contrast of Ὁ and yw (αποθανουνται). For the latter O.L. a 
has ‘‘in mortem”. 

4:5 μνημοσυνον. It is probable that }75}, ‘‘remember ”, with 
the following ‘‘ Yod” has been misread as the noun, f)3}. 

4:12f. εκ νομου θεοῦ. . . οδοις evroAwv beov. The omission of 
the article before νόμου and evroAwy points to τῷ construct state 
in the original. 

4:16 καὶ απο των θυγατερων τὴν povnv ἠρήμωσαν. From Ley. 26: 43, 
Ezek. 32:15, and Zech. 7:14 we learn that this Greek is probably 


from DY AVANT MID). In Isa. 54:1 ADDY is used of a 


woman. 


4:26 €x@pwv This word probably points to a confusion of 


D’SNt and DIN. 


oe 


) 


EE σαν το -»- — == 


Versions of Baruch. 55 


4:27 του erayovros. This sort of ellipsis would be very natural 
in Hebrew poetry, but is not at all natural in this Greek. It is 


doubtless from 753 : 


4:28 δεκαπλησιασατε ἐεπιστραφεντες ζητησαι avrov. ‘This sentence is 
one on which Whitehouse places special reliance, saying that ‘‘ the 
phraseology is such as Hebrew could hardly employ” (op. cit. p. 
573). It is at all events impossible Greek! The original Hebrew 
may have been wpa? DIY Wy wy. Compare Jer. 17:11 
and Rey. 3:18. 

4:31 f. δειλαιοι, --αι, -α would never have been written except by 
a translator. It probably represents Ὠ ΓΤ which just suits here 
and is rendered by the corresponding verb in Jer. 30:10. 

4:34 εἰς πενθος. Taken in their context these words are unmis- 
takably a translation of ΩΝ. 


5:3 ty πασῃ. The origin of this feminine is plain enough from 
the Greek of Ex. 17:14, Deut. 25:19; 29:19, Job 41:3. The 
original was Ὀ FANN pe Ὁ 

5:6 ws θρονον βασιλειας is ἃ mistranslation of M55 NDDS. 
The Hebrew will bear the translation, ‘‘As on a royal throne”, 
while the Greek must mean ‘‘As a royal throne” (comp. Jdg. 
22:36). 

The above cases of mistranslation are sufficient to show that 
the whole book of Baruch exists only in translation-Greek. In 
addition to this, however, the section, 3:9-5:9, furnishes strong 
evidence that it is derived from a Hebrew original by the fact that 
it consists of two poems. Several writers on Baruch refer to 
the second half of the book as poems though they claim at the 
same time that it is at least partly original in Greek. “The 
second part of the book (3:9-5:9), which differs greatly in form 
and tone from the first, consists of two poems. . . . That the 
first part of the book was originally written in Hebrew is prob- 
able” (Toy, in Jew. Encycl. vol. 2, p. 556). Marshall says of 
4:5-5:9, “This section is clearly divisible into four odes, each 
commencing with some form of θαρρεῖν, and to these is appended 
a Ps. closely related to the 11th of the Ps. of Sol... . There is 
little reason to suspect that it ever existed except in Greek” (op. 
cit. vol. 1, p. 253). Whitehouse also states that, “In the rest 
of the book (3:9-5:9) we pass from the prose of the previous 


56 R. R. Harwell, 


portion to poetry” (op. cit. p. 569). The last author carries out 
his view by publishing his translation of 3:9-5:9 in verses 
although he denies a Hebrew original for the second poem 
(4:5-5:9). 3 

What do these scholars mean by the use of the words, “poems”, 
“odes”? Certainly they do not mean to assert that any part of 
Baruch is written in the form of Greek poetry which is based on 
a regular succession of long and short syllables, for that would 
be meaningless. Why then do they speak of poetry at all? It 
is because this section, though not metrical in the Greek, exists 
in a certain measured form which makes itself felt even in a 
Greek translation. There is an unbroken series of short sentences 
which betray their origin. And the fact that there are two poems, 
each in a different meter, is presumptive evidence that they were 
originally written in Hebrew. The first poem on the “Praise 
of Wisdom” (3:9-4:4) is didactic and was composed in three-beat 
measures, while the second poem on “Jerusalem’s Lamentation 
over her Exiled Children and her Encouragement of Them” 
(4: 5-5:9) was originally written in five-beat measures which was 
the regular poetical form used to express both joy and sorrow. 
A retranslation of the text into Hebrew has certain limitations, 
yet that it is possible to translate this Greek at all into Hebrew 
measures without doing violence to the thought expressed, is con- 
vincing evidence that the Greek is not original. That any author 
would write out an original composition in Greek prose, even if 
the ideas were drawn from the Old Testament, so that it would 
fall into two Hebrew poems, each of which sustained an appro- 
priate measure throughout, is scarcely within the realm of 
possibility. Although the entire Greek text of both poems has 
been translated into Hebrew measures, it has not been thought 
necessary to publish the complete retranslation. The first poem 
(3:9-4:4) was found to be practically free from later additions, 
and the second poem (4:5-5:9) has only a very few. As being 
representative ten verses from the beginning of each poem have 
been selected from our retranslation to show the true nature of 
the Greek. They are the following: 


[ΝΖ 3:9 


ye oe 
DYN MIpN wow 


cl a ll te 


: 
- 
; 
' 
: 


Versions of Baruch. 57 
Aya AYTO INT 3:9 
oxen nt Πρ" 3:10 
MAN DSN PINS "3 
732 ΠΡΊΝ 1a 
D'ND2 NAN NBD 
"Δ τ Dy navn) 3:11 
MON Tp] Hwy 3 12 
DTN JI NDT ON 3:13 
Dbiy> ovoy/a nae 
ANDI NAD NE TDD 3:14 
IM MYT MIN Ἦ 
DMM "3; ΤῊΝ Ν 
Dow DY ἬΝ ON 
mDIpD NSD "9 3:15 
ΡΠ ΩΝ ON ND D1 
Dray Sui AN 8:16 
ΥΝ3 oe ΤῊ 


Ae . | eae 
D'DviT Wid¥D DIPNYD 3:17 


58 R. R. Harwell, 
anim 93 ay) 8: 
DIVAN IND 13 Ww 
DIN? TEP ΓΝῚ 
Diagn) qb30 en 8: 


Las | 
DPE YD? TPN "ΝᾺ 


Oxi ot ὮΝ wn ON 4: 
ΡΤ xO oNI> OND) 4: 
Dy OATIDI DADS ὈΞΟ ΘΠ 1» 
[ΤῸΝ NOI OND OND OD WY ONYNI 1D 4: 
poy ΟΝ nabonp inswin 4: 
ἘΦ DSN NIV OST AN) 
ONT) DYOY NIT ANT MNT 4: 
hy 2a ON aR “NAD 
on SON DON by won 
1991 22 MY AN NT 5 1: 
DOI TDN ὈΠῸΝ NDT TWN 
Dax) (233 ὈΠΦΝῚ pera DIN) 4: 


| | \. fe 
IVY) ΠΝ OY ΠΟ IN WIN 4: 


συ 


.Σ 


ΟΡ 


so 


a a Oe ee 


Versions of Baruch. 59 
ἪΡ ἨῸΠῚ OY DY NII ὈΞῪ 4:12 
WT ND ΟΡ ΟῚ ΟΝ AIAN TD 1D 4:18 
DITON MY 2773 DOT NN 
177 APT? HD DIM ND 
Gis "De 4:14 
5) 9 mba DN nn wD 
DP ON DIY NYT TWN 


2. Only one Translator of the Hebrew into Greek. 


No convincing evidence has been advanced to prove that the 
Greek version of Baruch is due to two translators. This view has 
been frequently advocated because the prevailing opinion has been 
that the book is partly original in the Greek. Yet even Kneucker 
who is convinced that the whole book is a version strives to show 
that two different hands are to be found in the Greek. The 
evidence which he advances may be summarized as follows: (1) 
In the prose section καὶ is frequently used to connect sentences, 
while in the poems δὲ is found or the conjunction is omitted. 
Also 3 is rendered by or: and yap in the respective sections. 
(2) The Greek is more freely treated in the second part. (3) 
The peculiar Hellenistic words as well as differences in the mean- 
ing and construction of words, point to a different translator for 
each half (op. cit. pp. 76-80). The differences, noted by Kneucker, 
exist, but they are not conclusive evidence, for he assumes that 
a translator using the flexible Greek language would render both 
prose and poetry in the same manner. 

More recently, however, Thackeray has proved that Jer. 29-51 
and Bar. 1-2 have been translated by one hand, and he then adds 
to his discussion as self-evident the statement that, “The Greek 
of the latter part of Baruch is of an entirely different character, 
and is certainly by another hand” (Jour. of Theo. Stud. vol. 4, 
p. 264). 


60 R. R. Harwell, 


The “entirely different character’ of the Greek so far as 
it exists in the second part of Baruch is doubtless due to the 
“different character” of the Hebrew original. In the Old Testa- 
ment a number of poems and fragments of verse are found 
embedded in a prose context. The difference between the Hebrew 
of these poems and that of the context is usually reflected in the 
Greek version. To illustrate, a short poem is found in the second 
chapter of Jonah. Though ideas relating to the sea, to prayer 
and to repentance are common to both the prose and poetry of 
this book, yet in the Greek sixty-nine per cent of the nouns, 
adjectives and verbs of the poem do not occur in the prose parts of 
the book. If the Hebrew original of Jonah had been lost, then 
the “entirely different character” of the Greek would have been 
sufficient evidence for a second hand. So also in Baruch, the 
change from prose to poetry in the original is a sufficient cause 


for a corresponding change in the language of the translator into 
Greek. 


3. The Old Greek Text Originally a Part of Jeremiah. 


In the discussion of the lectionary signs which are written on 
the margin of the Syro-Hexaplar text, it was found that a -᾿Ὁ 
for δ, “St is finished,” occurred at Bar. 1:5 and that the 
corresponding »;—*, “read,” had been lost. On account of the 
regularity with which these signs are used throughout the Codex, 
this lost “r° is evidence that there had been some recasting of 
the Greek text at the beginning of the book, for although the 
sign to indicate the beginning of the selection for public reading 
had been lost, the one to indicate the end was still copied in the 
margin of later manuscripts. 

Fortunately, it is not necessary to conjecture what may have . 
originally preceded the opening of this book, for the manuscripts 
of O. L. b furnish positive evidence that the Greek authority on 
which they were based began with Jer. 54:12. The last twenty- 
four verses of Jeremiah according to the Massoretic text have 
been abridged to nineteen in the Greek version. These are further 
reduced in the text of O. L. b to twelve verses which contain all 
the essential facts of the Hebrew original. To this addition of the 
Old Latin version is prefixed the title, “Incipit Liber Baruch”. 
It may be reasonably inferred from this evidence that at an early 


Versions of Baruch. 61 


date the books of Jeremiah and Baruch were written together in 
some manuscripts, and that when they were separated at least 
one division was made which differed from that of the later 


standard text. This view is favored by the nature of Jer. 52 


which is clearly an appendix. 

Again, quotations from Baruch are ascribed by the early Church 
Fathers to Jeremiah. Both Irenaeus in Gaul and Clement of 
Alexandria wrote during the last quarter of the second century 
A. D. It is quite probable that the former used the Syro- 
Palestinian type of text, and the latter the Egyptian, yet both 
regard the second half of Baruch as a part of Jeremiah. The 
long quotation of Bar. 4:36-5:9 is introduced by Irenaeus with 
the words, “Significavit Jeremias propheta . . . dicens” (Against 
Heresies, Bk. 5, ch. 35). Clement of Alexandria also uses the 
phrase, δια του Ἱερεμίου, to introduce each of his quotations from 
Bar. 3:13 and 4:4 (The Instructor, Bk. 1, ch. 10). About the 
middle of the third century Cyprian of Carthage prefixes to his 
quotation of Bar. 3:36-38 the words, “Item apud Jeremiam” 
(Testimonies against the Jews, Bk. 2, ch. 6). Therefore it is 
evident that no definite line of demarcation existed between the 
books of Jeremiah and Baruch in the manuscripts used by these 
Church Fathers. 

The book of Baruch was also included in the early lists of 
the canonical books in Greek. The seeming exception is in that 
of Melito whose list just antedates the time when Irenaeus and 
Clement of Alexandria were quoting Baruch as Jeremiah, so 
that it is very probable that Melito considered these two books 
as one. Only a half century later Origen likewise does not men- 
tion Baruch in his canonical list, but the position of this book 
in the Hexapla proves that he included it with Jeremiah. From 
the time of Origen each successive list mentions Baruch with 
Jeremiah until the close of the fourth century when Jerome 
definitely separated the two books. Yet in the oldest Greek 


codices, A, B and Q, Baruch immediately follows Jeremiah. 


The lectionary sign copied from the Hexapla, the manuscripts 
of the Old Latin version b, the quotations of the early Church 
Fathers, and the patristic lists of canonical books, all corroborate 
one another in proving that Baruch was regarded as a part of 
Jeremiah during the second century A. D. 


52 R. R. Harwell, 


The relation of the different versions of Baruch to each other 
and to the original Hebrew may be illustrated by the following 
diagram. 


[ Hebrew] 


= 


[Old Greek] 


[Theod. aN 


Standard 


Greek Lat. ὃ [Old Syr. | 
Syr-Hex. Lat.a Lat. ¢ Ordinary 


Syriac 


V. COMPOSITION AND DATE. 
1. Composition. 


The book of Baruch was originally composed in Hebrew and 
consists of two distinct parts; the first was written in prose 
(1:1-3:8), and the second in poetical form (3:9-5:9).. The 
common theme which binds the two parts together is the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the exile of her children. The prose 
section is a mosaic of passages drawn chiefly from Deuteronomy, 
Jeremiah and Daniel. It consists of an introduction (1: 1-14) 
and of a confession and prayer of the exiles (1:15-3:8). This 
first half of the book, written in prose, was probably composed 


by the man who edited the whole. Having before him this fine 


poetical composition (3:9-5:9), he ascribed it to Baruch and 
therefore wrote for it a suitable introduction. The section, 
1:1-3:8, certainly appears to be the work of one hand; observe 
how the request that prayer be offered in behalf of Nebuchadnezzar 
(1:11) prepares the way for the warning that national existence 
depended on submitting to him (2:21f.). The prose section as 
a whole has no literary merit other than that which is inherent 
in the borrowed passages. 

The second part of the book consists of two poems. The first 
exalts Wisdom, which Israel has forsaken (3:9-4:4). It is a 
unity and the thought advances gradually until it reaches a climax 
in the identification of Wisdom with the Law. The style is that 
of the Wisdom literature and compares favorably with that which 
is found in the twenty-eighth chapter of Job. The second poem 
is composed of four paragraphs, each of which begins with the 
exhortation, “Be of good courage”. In the first three Jerusalem 
encourages her children, but in the last she is herself addressed 
in most inspiring language. This poem, though it has been 
marred in several places by early interpolations, exhibits an 
excellent style with touches of the dramatic. The thought like- 
wise rises to successive levels until it finally reaches the exalted 
strain of Second Isaiah. 

These two poems were probably composed by one author, for 
not only are they found together, but the second presupposes the 


64 | ~  « BR, R. Harwell, 


first or its equivalent. The series of promises in the second poem 
find an adequate basis in the first. The reason why Israel has 
not been sold for destruction (4:6) and why God will restore 
him with joy and glory (5:9), is because the Law has been 
entrusted to him (3:37) and he knows the things which are 
pleasing to God (4:4). The cause of the captivity (3:12; 4:12) 
and the means of deliverance (4:2; 4:28) are the same in each 
poem. The entire contents of these poems favor the view that 
one poet, burdened with the misfortune of his people, chose 
Wisdom as an abstract theme and a personified Jerusalem as a 
concrete theme to express his thoughts on the exile and on the 
means of restoration with the purpose of giving encouragement. 
The literary ability of the author of the poetical section was 
far superior to that shown by the writer of the prose part. We 
repeat, therefore, that it seems more in harmony with the facts 


to assume that the poems were first in existence and that the 


author of the prose section gave them a definite setting by pre- 
fixing a composition made up of excerpts from accessible literature. 
To give his work authority he ascribed it to Baruch in accordance 
with the literary fashion. 


2. Date. 


The date of Baruch is uncertain. It cannot be fixed by a 
comparison of the fifth chapter of this book with the eleventh 
psalm of the Psalms of Solomon, for the ideas in both had been 
common literary stock since the time of Second Isaiah, nor is it 
convincing to assume that the relation ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar 
and Belshazzar in Dan. 5 and the prayer in Dan.-9 were new 
to the Jews at the beginning of the Maccabean age. Moreover, 
it is not safe to make prophetical and poetic language refer to 
definite events unless there is corroborating evidence. That every 
form of individual and national suffering reached its climax in 
the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, is evident, but it also 
requires no special proof to show that the Jews suffered and 
wailed over their hopeless political condition for more than six 
hundred years with the exception of a short period of independence 
under the Maccabees. 

Negatively, the book of Baruch shows no influence of the 
apocalyptic movement. The early view of destroying a city by 


1 
i 
7 


a 


Versions of Baruch. ὁ ar ara: τι δ: ἘΣ 
fire from heaven and the Hebrew conception of a shadowy exist- 
ence in Sheol are affirmed, while the later view of a general over- 
turning of the heathen as nations on the day of the Lord and a 
belief in the resurrection are wanting. The author assumes the 
point of view of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans 
(1:2); for him the service of the Temple is being performed 
with regularity (1:14). Although the Temple is in bad condi- 
tion (2:26), it is not necessary to suppose that it was entirely 
destroyed (comp. Pss. 74:7.and 79:1). The poem which exalts 
Wisdom belongs naturally to the period before the Christian 
era, and its composition after the destruction of Jerusalem by 
Titus is intrinsically improbable. Likewise the tone of hopeful- 
ness and the promises of speedy victory in the second poem (4: 24, 
35) can hardly be reconciled with a date between 70 and 100 A. D. 

Moreover, a Hebrew original for the entire book is strong evi- 
dence that the date of its composition precedes A. D. 70, for within 
two generations from that time the native church of Irenaeus in 
Asia Minor and that of Clement of Alexandria regarded the Greek 
version of Baruch as a part of Jeremiah. 

Again, the language of Jer. 29-51 in Greek shows an affinity 
with that of Bar. 1:1-3:9 that is difficult to explain by imitation. 
Kneucker has observed that there is a “striking agreement” 
between the two (op. cit. p. 82), although he rejects the view that 
both had the same translator. The evidence to show that the 
Greek version of Jer. 29-51 and of Bar. 1-2 is due to one hand 
has been formulated by H. St.J. Thackeray who has pointed out 
an important distinction in the Greek of the two parts of Jere- 
miah (Jour. Theo. Stud. vol. 4, pp. 261-266). The chief points 
of this evidence may be summarized as follows: Limited to Jer. 
and Bar. are the special meanings of δεσμωτης (1:9), εργαζξεσθαι 
(1:22), aBarov (2:4, 33), αποστολη (2:35), αποικισμος (2:30, 32). 
Though rarely found elsewhere the following instances of agree- 
ment are important: μαννα (1:10), zpos το μη to introduce a nega- 
tive purpose clause (1:19; 2:5), was instead of δουλος before 
“prophets” (1:20; 2:20, 24, 28), καθα (1:6; 2:2, 28), yevos 
(2:15), εἕξωθεν (2:23), and the use of a participle with a pronoun 
dependent on ἡμερα (2:28). The noun βομβησις is found only in 
Bar. 2:29, and its cognate verb only in Jer. 31:35; 48:36; 1 Ch. 
16:32. On the other hand Baruch has κλίνατε τὸν wpov (2:21) 
though Jeremiah uses ewayayere tov τραχηλον (27:12). 


OLB sas cise τι so RR Harwell, 


So many points of special agreement, therefore, are sufficient to 
prove that the latter part of Jeremiah and the prose section of 
Baruch were translated by one hand. Thackeray’s evidence applies 
only to Bar. 1-2 to which he thinks we must give a much earlier 
date than that proposed by Kneucker and Schiirer. But if the 
entire book was composed in Hebrew, then, as the evidence fur- 
nished above is sufficient to show, not only a part, but the whole 
must have been translated into Greek by a single hand sometime 
before the beginning of the Christian era. This view is cor- 
roborated by the fact that the long quotation of Jer. 31: 31-34, 
found in Heb. 8: 8-12, reveals the use of our Greek text of the 
second part of Jeremiah. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude 
that Baruch formed a part of the Greek Bible before the rise 
of the New Testament. The date of the original composition 
would probably be not later than 100 B. C., and it is altogether 
reasonable to suppose that the poems were composed before the 
Maccabean age. 


ὦ PP IN et Δὶὶ ἀΠὴτ AN 1.5.1.0.} ΚΣ. ee ... 2, Ὁ. 1.2 


STAMPED BELOW 


AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 


WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
WILL INCREASE TO 50 CENTS ON THE FOURTH 


DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
OVERDUE, 


MAY 13 1946 


LD 21-100m-12,’43 (8796s) 


: 
; 
t ‘ 
i , 
' 

‘ 

7 
ial 
he 

‘ 

͵ 
¢ 


Ce wel Σ 


Gaylord Bros. 


Makers 


Syracuse, N. Y. 
PAT. JAN. 21, 1908 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 


batt 
whose 


ernie 


